Story  of  My  Life 


WILLIAM  S.  TURNER 


Columbia  Stotoetsitp 

mtyeCftptfiJrtogmrk 

THE  LIBRARIES 


Bequest  of 

Frederic  Bancroft 

1860-1945 


t  -, 


'///<yv\ 


Story  of  My  Life 


BY 

Rev.  William  S.  Turner,  A.  M. 

A  Pioneer  in  Methodism  in  the  States  of  California 
and  Washington 

Written  at  Spokane,  Washington,  1904 


FOLLOWED  BY  AN 

APPENDIX 

Containing  Characteristic  Selections  from  His 
Writings  and  Public  Addresses 


* 


PniNTBE  ^OR  TITt5  A.UTFOR  FY 

THE  WESSKKN  METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN 

CINCINNATI 


TBS 


f 


3/31* 


/  dedicate  this  Volume  to  the  Superannuate 
Ministers,  their  Widows,  and  the  Laity  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  who  have  known  me 
best  in  my  life  work.    Affectionately, 

W.  S.  T. 


CONTENTS 


Page 

Introduction.    By  Rev.  Henry  D.  Kimball,  D.  D.. .     7 

Parentage 11 

Conversion   12 

My  Call  to  the  Christian  Ministry 13 

My  First  Sermon 17 

►  -Marriage  and  Western  Pioneering 18 

Death  of  My  First  Wife 20 

Life  in  the  Hawaiian  Islands 21 

Second  Marriage 22 

Educational  Work 23 

L^Ln  the  Saddle  as  Presiding  Elder 24 

Two  Remarkable  Conversions 30 

Indian  Reservations .' 36 

Removal  to  Washington  Territory 39 

Darwinism   42 

My  Associates  in  Christian  Work 44 

With  Sketches  of — 

Christian  Shoup 44 

President  Edward  Thomson,   of   Ohio   Wesleyan 

University 45 

President  Lucian  W.   Berry,  of  Indiana  Asbury 

University    46 

Bishop  William  Taylor 47 

Dr.  Martin  C.  Briggs 47 

President  Edward  Bannister,  of  University  of  the 

Pacific  48 

George  Clifford 48 

Hiram  C.  Tallman 48 

John  B.  Hill 49 

John  W.  Ross 50 

5 


6  CONTENTS 

Page 

Milton  S.  Anderson 51 

William  J.  White 51 

John  Uren 52 

Samuel  G.  Havermale 53 

Father  Wilbur 53 

Dr.  Harvey  K.  Hines 53 

Theodore  Hoagland 53 

Dr.  Henry  Brown 54 

W.  B.  Carithers 54 

John  Le  Cornu 54 

David  E.  George 55 

Father  Waltz 55 

Andrew  J.  Loomis 56 

The  Books  that  have  Influenced  and  Impressed  Me  57 

Finis 57 

Mrs.  Susan  Beecher  Turner — A  Memorial  Sketch. . .  59 

APPENDIX. 

"Industry  the  Road  to  Success."    Prize  Essay,  1849  63 
"Virtue  the  Guardian  op  Nations."    Oration,  185 1  72 
"The  Mission  op  America."    Independence  Day  Ora- 
tion, 1852 83 

"Moral  Epport."    Graduating  Oration,  1852 98 

Honolulu  Sketches  and  Correspondence,  1856-7 101 

"Relation  op  College  to  Practical  Life."    Address, 

1861  114 

"The  Lost  Light  of  Heathen  Nations."    Sermon.  .131 
"Introduction  of  Moral  Evil."    Lecture  to  Students  148 

"Conscience."    Lecture  to  Students 166 

"Joseph  in  Egypt."    Lecture 179 

"The  Supreme  Deity  op  Christ."    Essay 201 

The  Mistakes  of  Ingersoll 216 

Lectures  on  Evolution 253 

Women  in  the  Legislative  Councils  of  the 
Church.    A  reply  to  Prof.  James  Strong,  LL.  D. .  .309 

Higher  Criticism 318 

Honolulu  Sketches 338 


INTRODUCTION. 

BY  HENRY  D.  KIMBALL,  D.  D.,  PASTOR  OF  VINCENT  METHODIST 
EPISCOPAL  CHURCH,  SPOKANE,  WASHINGTON. 

In  puttng  forth  this  volume  its  author  has  yielded  to 
the  insistent  desire  of  many  of  his  friends.  It  is  now  some 
five  years  since  he  retired  from  the  more  active  work  of  the 
ministry;  but  that  ministry  in  its  unselfish  devotion  to  the 
service  of  mankind,  in  its  entire  and  unchallenged  loyalty 
to  revealed  truth,  in  its  loving,  glad  consecration  to  the 
will  of  God  at  the  cost  of  sacrifice  and  hardship,  holds  a 
large  place  in  the  grateful  memory  of  thousands  who  will 
hail  with  delight  the  appearance  of  this  volume. 

It  is,  we  think,  to  be  regretted  that  some  other  pen  than 
his  own  has  not  given  us  the  portraiture  of  his  life,  for 
only  so  could  it  be  true  to  that  which  men  have  seen  of 
him  in  the  arena  of  conflict  with  evil,  and  which  many 
now  see  in  the  repose  of  a  mission  well-nigh  accomplished. 
His  pen  refuses  to  record  the  traits  which  give  luster  to 
his  life — the  things  long  since  recorded  in  the  memory  of 
those  who  have  known  him  best,  and  things  now  seen 
in  his  attractive  and  beautiful  age. 

In  the  "Address  of  Welcome  to  the  Orator  of  the 
Philisonian  Society"  we  see  the  style  which  marks  the 
man  of  seventy-eight  years.  It  is  interesting  to  trace  the 
identity  of  mental  trend  and  habit  through  all  the  pro- 
ductions of  his  pen  from  "The  Prize  Essay"  to  "The  Story 
of  My  Life."  There  is  development,  increase  of  power, 
extension  of  outlook,  but  mental  habitudes  are  the  same. 
Whether  it  be  the  young  man  of  twenty-three  or  the  vet- 
eran of  seventy-eight,  his  approach  to  his  theme  and  his 
method  of  handling  it  are  identical.  The  average  man 
begins  his  literary  life  with  a  composite  style  which  is 
neither  his  own  nor  another's.    He  seeks  the  outlook  and 

7 


8  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

expression  of  the  heroes  of  his  studies  and  the  masters  of 
his  classroom,  and  attains  neither,  though  there  is  a 
strange  commingling  of  the  mental  coloring  of  them  all. 
With  change  of  masters  and  heroes  his  style  changes. 
Who  has  not  been  amused  in  looking  over  essays  and  ora- 
tions, yellow  with  time  and  which  won  the  applause  of  his 
fellow-students,  as  he  has  traced  the  impress  of  Virgil  in 
one,  of  Homer  in  another,  and  of  his  favorite  professor  in 
them  all.  The  time  came  when  he  sought  his  own  outlook 
and  tried  to  formulate  his  own  conceptions  in  the  language 
of  his  own  individuality.  By  this  patient  process  he  won 
a  style  which  was  his  own.  But  W.  S.  Turner's  style 
seems  to  have  been  his  own  from  the  beginning. 

In  "The  Prize  Essay"  entitled  "Industry  the  Road  to 
Success,"  written  in  his  twenty-third  year,  may  be  seen 
one  of  the  secrets  of  his  life's  achievement.  What  must 
have  been  the  industry  of  the  man — his  constitution  never 
vigorous — who  as  student  worked  his  own  way  through 
college,  and  as  presiding  elder  traversed  vast  districts, 
yet  so  kept  himself  in  touch  with  the  classics  and  abreast 
of  scientific  and  philosophical  thought  that  he  was  com- 
petent, on  call,  to  fill  a  professor's  chair  in  the  University 
of  the  Pacific.  Such  industry  awes  us  and  rebukes  the 
folly  of  those  who  complain  of  the  hardships  to  which  the 
Church  of  to-day  calls  its  ministers. 

Much  of  the  history  of  California  and  of  this  Inland 
Empire  is  interwoven  with  the  life  of  this  man  of  untiring 
industry  and  self-sacrifice.  In  his  travels  as  a  minister  he 
knocked  at  the  door  of  the  pioneer,  visited  the  camps  of 
miners  and  lumbermen,  was  the  honored  guest  in  homes 
of  refinement,  was  in  touch  with  all  classes  over  a  vast 
territory,  impressing  all  by  his  unpretentious  culture  and 
piety,  and  ministering  to  all  by  the  breadth  and  sincerity 
of  his  human  sympathies  and  by  the  message  of  love  which 
he  brought  from  the  Heavenly  Father.  Who  can  gather 
up  the  fruits  of  such  a  life,  or  fix  limits  to  the  influence  so 
widely  cast  and  yet  so  direct  and  personal?  As  teacher 
and  president  of  seminary  and  college,  who  can  know  the 
measure  of  his  molding  power  upon  the  civilization  of  a 


INTRODUCTION.  9 

land  to  which  wild  adventurers  and  honest  seekers  for 
wealth  alike  were  flocking?  Not  till  "the  books"  kept 
by  the  Errorless  One  "shall  be  opened"  can  we  know  the 
extent  of  this  man's  influence  in  shaping  the  civilization 
of  these  vast  regions.  It  is  well  that  the  story  of  this  life 
has  been  written,  that  its  inspiration  may  reach  the  young 
men  who  may  toil  in  fields  which  this  man  redeemed  from 
sterility  and  seeded  with  truth. 

In  the  hope  that  his  declining  sun  may  shine  brightly 
to  its  setting,  and  that  its  afterglow  may  blend  with  the 
glory  of  the  risen  sun  of  his  immortal  life,  we  commend 
his  book  to  all  lovers  of  Christian  heroism. 

HENRY  D.  KIMBALL. 

Spokane,  Washington,  October  ip,  1904. 


STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

I  have  been  frequently  requested  by  several  of  my  per- 
sonal friends  to  give  some  account  of  my  life  and  work. 
Now  that  I  am  on  the  superannuated  list  of  ministers,  and 
have  some  leisure,  I  can  hardly  deny  them  this  fraternal 
request. 

Permit  me  to  say  at  the  outset,  that  there  is  no  renown 
in  this  personal  life,  such  as  pertains  to  men  of  celebrity 
in  Church  or  State.  It  is  unpretentious;  only  such  as  is 
ordinary  among  Methodist  ministers.  It  will  only  have 
special  interest  to  Methodist  people,  and  only  to  those  who 
have  known  me  in  my  social,  religious,  and  ministerial  life. 
You  see,  then,  how  narrow  and  limited  this  life  has  been 
in  the  breadth  of  its  influence.  But  no  life  is  unimportant 
that  has  been  sincere  and  true  to  God's  purpose,  however 
limited.  I  therefore  dedicate  this  brief  biography  to  my 
many  friends  in  the  Church  and  out  of  it,  who  may  chance 
to  read  it,  with  the  prayer  that  my  Heavenly  Father's 
blessing  may  go  with  it. 

Parentage. 

My  father's  name  was  William  Turner,  and  my 
mother's  maiden  name  was  Matilda  Adams.  I  am  one  of 
seventeen  children — seven  sons  and  ten  daughters,  my 
father  having  been  twice  married.  I  was  the  seventh  in 
order  of  birth.  Three  sons  by  the  first  marriage  became 
Methodist  ministers.  My  father  was  a  local  minister  in 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  He  preached  nearly  as 
often  as  the  traveling  preachers  of  his  day,  especially  at 
funerals.  He  was  a  tailor  by  trade,  and  was  a  Justice  of 
the  Peace  for  many  years,  and  died  at  the  ripe  age  of 
ninety  years  and  twenty-one  days.  My  birthplace  was 
Jersey  Shore,  in  Central  Pennsylvania,  a  place  of  no  note. 

ii 


12  STORY  OF  MY  LIFB. 

The  date  was  May  28,  1826.  I  was  converted  at  the  age 
of  fourteen,  and  united  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  The  entire  family  became  members  of  the 
Church,  except  one  boy,  and  became  good  and  respectable 
American  citizens.  This  is  a  fairly  good  record  for  a 
minister's  family,  who  are  supposed  to  turn  out  badly. 

Conversion. 

My  conversion  at  the  age  of  fourteen,  as  I  said,  was 
in  a  sense  peculiar  enough  to  call  for  some  notice.  In  the 
early  days  of  Methodism  great  emphasis  was  put  on  con- 
version, but  not  greater  than  is  clearly  taught  in  the  New 
Testament;  but  I  fear  less  emphasis  is  put  on  it  to-day 
than  in  Wesley's  time  in  this  great  Church,  I  mean  by  most 
Methodist  ministers  at  present.  Conviction  then  was  gen- 
erally clear,  and  often  pungent.  Such  was  mine.  This 
continued  in  my  case  for  two  years  and  a  half,  with  but 
few  intervals  of  quiet  from  guilt  and  condemnation.  In 
these  two  years  and  six  months  I  passed  through  four  or 
five  seasons  of  gracious  revivals,  in  which  I  took  a  deep 
and  serious  interest  without  finding  peace  or  rest.  At  the 
close  of  the  last  revival  mentioned,  there  were  about  one 
hundred  taken  into  the  Church  of  my  home  town.  I  sat 
in  the  congregation  with  a  sad  and  burdened  heart  and 
great  discouragement.  There  was  an  elderly  man,  whom 
I  greatly  admired  as  a  Christian,  who  sat  by  my  side.  I 
ventured  to  ask  him  if  he  thought  it  would  be  wrong  for 
me  to  go  forward  and  join  the  Church  with  the  throng 
who  were  pressing  into  the  kingdom.  He  replied  that  he 
thought  it  would  be  well  to  do  so.  I  went  forward 
with  the  rest,  fully  determined  to  seek  till  I  found  peace 
for  my  troubled  soul.  That  evening,  in  a  prayer  service 
before  the  sermon,  a  glorious  peace  came  into  my  soul, 
and  I  broke  out  into  a  joyous  laughter,  without  any  bois- 
terous shouting,  as  I  had  imagined  I  would  have  at  my 
deliverance  from  guilt  and  condemnation.  I  should  have 
been  justified  in  shouting  aloud,  so  great  was  the  change, 
"A  new  creature  in  Christ  Jesus !"    A  passage  from  dark- 


CALL  TO  THE  CHRISTIAN  MINISTRY.       13 

ness  into  light.  "Bless  the  Lord,  O  my  soul,  and  all  that 
is  within  me  bless  His  holy  name !"  This  is  the  language 
of  a  new-born  soul. 

I  have  often,  since  those  two  years  and  six  months' 
seeking,  wondered  why  I  did  not  enter  into  rest  sooner. 
Of  one  thing  I  am  clearly  conscious,  that  it  has  taught 
me  an  important  lesson;  that  had  I  backslidden  I  have 
had  a  wholesome  fear  that  I  might  never  have  been  re- 
claimed. Another  thing  I  have  been  taught  by  this  long 
struggle  is,  that  sin — deliberate  sin — is  an  awful  thing  in 
God's  sight,  and  when  repented  of  and  forgiven  it  won- 
derfully magnifies  the  goodness  and  mercy  of  God  our 
Heavenly  Father ! 

This  leads  me  to  speak  of  my  early  religious  life  from 
my  fourteenth  to  my  twenty-fourth  year.  I  was  faithful 
and  conscientious  in  my  attendance  on  the  class-meetings, 
the  prayer-meetings,  and  the  public  services  of  the  sanctu- 
ary, and  tremblingly  took  part  in  the  social  meetings.  I 
also  tried  to  be  faithful  in  reading  the  Bible  and  secret 
prayer.  I  was  taught  to  reverence  the  Sabbath  by  my 
parents,  both  by  precept  and  example.  My  father  was 
brought  up  a  strict  Presbyterian,  but  became  a  Methodist 
soon  after  his  marriage.  I  thank  God  for  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  and  its  indirect  influence  on  my  life  through  my 
parents. 

My  Caliv  to  the  Christian  Ministry. 

I  believe  firmly  in  a  Divine  call.  I  can  not  believe 
otherwise,  as  I  read  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  The 
success  of  Christianity  depends  largely  on  this  Divine  call. 
If  I  was  ever  called  of  God  to  enter  this  work,  it  was 
before  my  conversion  as  related  above.  I  had  early  im- 
pressions in  childhood,  as  I  now  vividly  remember  them, 
that  I  some  day  might  be  called  into  the  ministry.  The 
first  decided  conviction  occurred  in  my  eighth  year.  My 
father,  after  he  became  a  Methodist,  attended  the  camp- 
meetings  that  were  common  in  his  day,  taking  his  family 
and  tenting  on  the  ground  for  a  week  or  two  at  a  time. 


14  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

At  this  particular  camp-meeting,  in  my  eighth  year,  the 
following  incident  occurred.  On  a  Saturday  a  young  man 
by  the  name  of  Coffee  preached.  I  sat  in  what  was  known 
as  the  altar,  on  a  rude  bench,  my  feet  not  touching  the 
ground.  I  recollect  with  great  clearness  the  text,  and  the 
deep  solemnity  with  which  he  announced  it ;  namely,  "Will 
a  man  rob  God?"  (Malachi.)  I  said  then  and  there  to 
myself,  If  God  should  ever  call  me  to  preach  the  gospel, 
that  will  be  the  first  text  I  will  preach  from. 

After  my  conversion,  I  purposely  emphasize  that  word, 
my  convictions  took  on  more  definite  form  and  seriousness 
touching  my  call  to  the  ministry,  without,  however,  my 
ever  opening  my  mind  to  any  one  about  it.  I  really  was 
strongly  inclined  not  to  be  communicative  on  that  par- 
ticular subject.  I  went  to  learn  a  trade  in  my  fourteenth 
year,  soon  after  conversion,  and  left  home  to  do  so.  I 
observed  the  same  fidelity  in  my  Church  duties  as  at  home. 

After  learning  my  trade,  I  went  West  in  my  eighteenth 
year.  My  class-leaders  and  pastors,  under  whose  watchful 
care  I  placed  myself  wherever  I  stopped  for  a  longer  or 
shorter  time,  began  to  interview  me  on  my  proposed  life 
work,  and  put  pertinent  and  direct  questions  to  me  as  to 
whether  I  felt  called  to  preach.  I  usually  put  them  off  by 
saying  that  my  education  was  too  limited  to  seriously  think 
of  preaching  with  my  educational  equipment,  without 
directly  admitting  that  some  time  I  intended,  if  God  opened 
the  way,  to  enter  the  ministry.  This  state  of  experience 
in  the  various  places  I  lived  in,  in  Ohio  and  Indiana,  con- 
tinued to  call  me  out  on  this  question.  I  now,  from  1844 
to  1848,  gave  myself  seriously  to  the  task  of  preparation; 
first,  by  going  to  school  and  working  at  my  trade  (tailor) 
to  earn  means  to  attend  better  graded  schools. 

I  attended  the  Wesleyan  University  at  Delaware,  Ohio, 
in  the  year  1847,  wlt^  great  profit  and  "batched."  During 
the  long  vacation  I  went  down  to  Indiana  to  visit  some 
relatives  at  Rising  Sun,  and  was  induced  to  go  to  Asbury 
University  (now  DePauw),  where  I  remained  four  years 
and  completed  the  course  in  that  school.  These  were  years 
of  great  self-denial  and  hard  work.    I  lived  on  seventy- 


CALL  TO  THB  CHRISTIAN  MINISTRY.      15 

five  cents  a  week,  and  worked  at  my  trade  on  Saturdays 
for  two  years  of  the  four.  Then  I  was  given  a  few  classes 
to  teach  in  the  Preparatory  Department  of  the  college, 
which,  with  great  economy  and  hard  work,  enabled  me  to 
pass  to  graduation  in  June,  1852. 

It  was  while  in  Asbury  University  that  I  passed 
through  a  severe  conflict  and  struggle  on  the  question  of 
my  call  to  the  ministry.  This  struggle  culminated  in  the 
year  1850.  It  was  on  this  wise:  I  had  been  just  as  faith- 
ful in  my  private  and  public  religious  duties  as  in  the  years 
past;  but  some  things  occurred  in  my  college  life  to  throw 
doubts  on  the  genuineness  of  my  Divine  call  to  the  Gospel 
ministry.  Some  of  my  valued  student  friends  believed 
honestly  that  I  was  making  a  mistake  in  looking  to  the 
ministry  as  my  future  calling,  and  were  free  to  tell  me  so. 
They  said  that  I  was  mentally  and  otherwise  fitted  for  the 
profession  of  the  law,  and  if*  I  entered  the  ministry  I 
never  would  reach  my  best.  I,  of  course,  listened  to  them 
with  some  seriousness,  because  I  knew  that  I  had  known 
a  few  cases  where  I  believed  some  had  made  this  mistake, 
and  it  was  possible  that  I  might  be  of  that  number. 

I  had  at  this  time  of  doubt  this  occurrence  to  further 
increase  my  perplexity.  I  was  called  upon  by  the  literary 
society,  of  which  I  was  a  member,  to  make  a  welcome 
address  on  a  public  occasion  to  a  former  graduate  of  the 
university.  There  was  a  very  large  audience  present  at 
the  time.  In  the  audience  was  the  judge  of  the  District 
Court  and  the  president  of  the  State  Law  School  of  Indi- 
ana. At  the  conclusion  of  my  address  (as  I  afterward 
learned),  the  president  of  the  law  school  asked  the  judge 
who  I  was,  and  what  my  future  calling  was  to  be.  He 
was  informed  that  I  was  to  enter  the  ministry.  He  replied 
that  I  was  making  a  mistake;  that  I  was  "cut  out  for  the 
law."  At  the  conclusion  of  the  address  of  the  gentleman 
who  followed  me,  the  president  asked  the  judge  what  that 
man's  calling  was,  and  was  told  he  was  a  lawyer.  Said  the 
president,  "He  ought  to  be  a  minister."  This  opinion  of 
the  president  of  the  law  school  came  to  me  in  an  unex- 
pected way,  and  greatly  increased  my  doubt  and  perplexity. 


16  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

My  only  recourse  as  a  Christian  was  to  take  the  case  to 
God  in  prayer,  and  have  it  settled  once  for  all.  This  I 
did.  Days  and  weeks  the  conflict  raged.  This  is  about  the 
way  the  discussion  took  place  in  my  mind.  How  was  I 
to  account  for  my  childhood  impressions,  if  God  was  not 
speaking  to  me  through  my  religious  nature  ?  In  my  child- 
hood plays  with  unsophisticated  companions,  when  we 
played  Church,  as  children  do,  I  was  almost  uniformly 
chosen  to  be  the  preacher  without  my  putting  myself  for- 
ward. How  was  I  to  account  for  the  almost  continual 
urging  of  this  subject  on  my  attention  by  class-leaders 
and  ministers,  who  could  not  know  that  I  ever  personally 
had  such  thoughts,  for  they  were  strangers  to  me,  who 
was  constantly  changing  locations.  Add  this,  that  I  was 
strongly  inclined  to  conceal  my  own  conscious  convictions. 
Again,  these  men  could  have  no  sinister  motive  to  urge 
this  question  upon  me,  a  mere  strippling,  poor  in  worldly 
goods  and  lacking  in  education.  How  came  it  that  these 
strangers  should  have  convictions  exactly  answering  to 
my  own,  that  had  never  been  divulged  to  any  mortal? 
And  then  at  times  I  found  one  side  of  "the  natural  man" 
averse  to  the  life  of  a  Methodist  minister,  from  a  financial 
point  of  view,  as  I  then  observed  it.  It  meant  sacrifice 
and  poverty  then,  as  it  does  not  always  now.  This  was 
also  to  be  considered  from  a  Christian  standpoint.  Were 
my  student  friends,  who  were  not  all  Christians,  as  com- 
petent to  give  an  unbiased  opinion  on  such  a  subject  as 
ministers  and  godly  men  ? 

But  in  this  discussion  with  my  doubts  I  felt  called  upon 
to  consider  what  was  implied  in  entering  a  profession  that 
was  more  in  harmony  with  my  mental  cast  of  mind,  as 
some  of  my  friends  and  distinguished  judges  thought  they 
saw  in  me.  Grant  that  there  was  promise  of  promotion, 
wealth,  political  preferment,  and  all  that,  that  there  were 
not  in  the  ministerial  calling.  Were  there  not  also  greater 
dangers  and  temptations,  that  most  lawyers  seem  unable 
to  resist?  There  are  many  cases,  from  my  point  of  view, 
that  I  could  not  consent  to  take  for  my  clients.  These  I 
had  to  reckon  with;  so,  in  looking  carefully  and  prayer- 


MY  FIRST  SERMON.  17 

fully  over  the  whole  ground,  I  decided  to  be  a  mediocre 
minister  of  the  gospel,  rather  than  a  successful  lawyer.  All 
this  took  place  in  the  year  1850,  in  my  third  year  in  college. 

My  First  Sermon. 

Soon  after  I  accepted  license  to  preach,  and  was  called 
upon  to  use  my  license.  This  was  a  time  of  anxiety  and 
no  little  trepidation.  But  what  was  to  be  the  text  and 
theme?  Strange  to  tell,  there  came  vividly  to  mind  the 
promise  I  had  made  to  myself,  when  eight  years  old,  if 
God  should  ever  call  me  to  preach  the  Gospel  it  would  be 
the  text  that  young  Coffee  used  at  that  memorable  (to  me) 
camp-meeting  in  Central  Pennsylvania,  "Will  a  man  rob 
God?"  (Malachi.)  I  made  as  careful  a  preparation  as 
my  spare  time  from  my  college  studies  permitted.  As  I 
remember  the  plan  of  the  sermon,  it  was  this: 

Introduction. — We  can  not  rob  God  of  His  essential 
attributes,  but  we  may  rob  Him — 

1.  Of  our  moral  influence; 

2.  Of  the  right  use  of  our  talents; 

3.  Of  our  reasonable  services;  and 

4.  In  the  misuse  of  our  property. 

There  was  a  Methodist  local  preacher  in  the  college 
town  who  was  curious  to  hear  my  first  effort,  and  proposed 
to  take  me  to  the  country  schoolhouse  where  I  was  to 
preach.  I  accepted  the  offer.  He  sat  behind  me  in  what 
served  as  a  pulpit.  When  I  reached  the  point  of  the  mis- 
use of  property  that  God  lodged  in  our  hands  as  His 
stewards  I  struck  fire.  I  had  collected  some  statistics  on 
the  misuse  of  God's  money  on  the  single  article  of  tobacco 
in  the  United  States.  The  amount  was  appalling.  I  not 
only  charged  tobacco-users  at  large,  but  especially  Church 
members,  with  guilt  in  this  misuse.  I  pronounced  it  down- 
right robbery,  and  a  flagrant  sin  and  curse.  I  then  paid 
my  respects  to  many  ministers  of  the  Gospel,  who  were 
guilty  of  this  robbery,  in  addition  to  the  filth  attending 
it  in  many  congregatons  of  that  day.  I  had  a  jury  and  the 
accused  before  me,  and  a  judge  on  the  bench,  and  before 
I  ended  I  had  some  conviction  that  I  had  missed  my  call- 
2 


18  STORY  OF  MY  LIFB. 

ing,  and  that  there  was  a  lawyer  in  court  that  day.  I 
heard  afterwards  that  several  in  the  congregation  were 
of  the  opinion  of  the  president  of  the  law  school,  that  I 
had  missed  my  calling. 

After  the  congregation  was  dismissed,  and  the  local 
preacher  and  I  repaired  to  the  buggy  to  return  to  town, 
he  administered  this  rebuke  to  me :  "Young  man,  the  next 
time  you  attempt  to  preach,  preach  the  Gospel."  I  replied 
that  I  thought  I  had.  I  was  certain  I  had;  but  was  sorry 
that  he  had  regarded  the  sermon  as  particularly  personal 
in  this  case,  as  the  sequel  proved.  He  had  befouled  the 
stand  with  tobacco  expectoration,  while  I  was  trying  to 
discourage  the  evil.  There  was  silence  on  the  journey 
home  between  us,  and  I  feared  there  was  ill-feeling  on  his 
part  and  sorrow  on  my  part.  In  about  two  weeks  from 
that  time  he  met  me  on  the  street,  and  extending  his  hand, 
which  I  cordially  met,  he  said:  "Brother,  I  owe  you  an 
apology  for  the  manner-  in  which  I  criticised  your 
sermon.  I  want  to  tell  you  that  I  have  quit  the  use  of 
tobacco,  and  thank  you  for  the  timely  and  forceful  ser- 
mon you  preached  that  day."  I  congratulated  him  on  his 
success  and  accepted  the  apology. 

At  the  close  of  that  day's  effort  I  had  some  fears  that 
I  was  not  cut  out  for  a  preacher;  but  later  I  revised  that 
opinion  somewhat,  for  in  two  or  three  months  from  that 
time  a  gracious  revival  of  religion  occurred  under  my 
labors  at  that  same  schoolhouse,  when  about  forty  persons 
were  converted,  and,  strange  to  say,  two  of  the  converts 
became  Christian  lawyers.  This  greatly  helped  me  in  the 
decision  I  had  made,  and  prevented  entire  discouragement 
at  a  critical  time  in  my  experience.  I  continued  to  preach 
every  Sunday  during  my  college  life  at  some  place  in  the 
country  schoolhouses,  with  as  much  acceptability  as  is 
common  among  beginners. 

Marriage  and  Western  Pioneering. 

The  next  day  after  graduation,  in  1852,  I  married 
Miss  Ann  S.  Cowgill,  the  daughter  of  one  of  the  judges 
heretofore  mentioned,  who  called  forth  the  opinion  that 


MARRIAGE  AND  WESTERN  PIONEERING,    ig 

I  had  made  a  mistake  in  choosing  the  calling  of  the  Chris- 
tian ministry.  Soon  after  marriage  I  joined  the  Southeast 
Indiana  Conference,  and  was  immediately  transferred  to 
the  California  Mission.  This  was  in  September,  1852, 
when  we  left  for  our  life  work  on  the  Pacific  Coast. 

My  first  appointment  in  California  was  at  Diamond 
Springs,  a  mining  town  of  two  or  three  thousand  peo- 
ple in  the  Sierra  Nevada  Mountains.  Everything  was 
new  and  very  primitive.  Our  first  house  was  a  mere 
shell,  made  of  stakes  driven  in  the  ground  and  clap- 
boarded  with  "shakes."  It  consisted  of  two  rooms,  kitchen 
and  bedroom.  For  this  we  paid  thirty-five  dollars  per 
month.  Flour  was  forty  dollars  per  barrel,  and  other  pro- 
visions in  proportion.  We  had  a  drygoods  box  for  a  table. 
Mrs.  Turner  had  a  temporary  stool  for  a  seat,  and  I  a 
nail  keg  with  a  board  for  a  cover.  The  rainy  season  soon 
set  in,  and  when  the  rains  were  heaviest  we  had  to  use  an 
umbrella  at  nights  to  keep  the  rain  from  our  faces.  But 
the  people  were  exceedingly  kind,  and  we  soon  adjusted 
ourselves  to  our  new  surroundings,  and  before  the  Con- 
ference year  closed  we  had  built  a  church  and  parsonage. 
Bishop  Simpson,  who  was  the  second  bishop  who  visited 
California,  dedicated  our  new  church.  He  had  known  my 
wife  in  her  girlhood.  It  was  a  great  treat  to  have  him 
with  us  and  to  hear  him  preach.  I  had  the  pleasure  of 
accompanying  him  to  Coloma,  where  gold  was  first  dis- 
covered on  the  headwaters  of  the  American  River. 

This  year  my  labors  were  blessed  with  a  revival,  in 
which  some  forty  or  more  were  converted,  all  men,  for 
women  in  California  at  that  time  were  scarce  and  invalu- 
able. Out  of  this  revival  there  came  four  ministers  of 
the  Gospel,  and  a  Sunday-school  superintendent  from  the 
leading  gambler  of  the  town.  Meetings  were  held  in  a 
temporary  schoolhouse  that  would  not  seat  over  seventy- 
five  people;  but  the  house  was  crowded  every  night,  and 
many  stood  outside  and  filled  the  window  spaces  where 
the  sashes  were  removed.  All  this  occurred  in  hot 
weather. 

The  case  of  the  gambler  was  peculiar  enough  to  speak 


20  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

particularly  of  it.  He  came  out  of  sheer  curiosity.  The 
large  gambling  saloon,  where  hundreds  gathered  every 
night,  was  near  by.  He  seated  himself  near  the  door, 
by  the  side  of  an  associate.  I  had  not  spoken  more  than 
ten  minutes  before  he  left  the  house.  Soon  he  returned 
and  resumed  his  seat.  In  a  few  minutes  he  left  again, 
and  soon  returned.  He  left  a  third  time,  and  returned. 
I  assumed  that  he  did  it  to  disturb  the  meeting.  The  next 
night  he  was  present.  After  the  sermon,  when  an  invita- 
tion was  given  he  was  the  first  to  come.  He  kneeled  at 
the  bench.  We  were  not  certain  what  his  motive  was; 
but  he  came,  I  think,  for  three  nights  as  a  seeker,  and 
was  soundly  converted.  He  told  his  experience,  which 
produced  a  profound  sensation,  and  it  gave  a  fresh  im- 
pulse to  the  revival.  He  said  the  first  night  of  his  attend- 
ance that  they  remembered  his  leaving  the  house  three 
times  and  returning.  He  said  that  the  Holy  Spirit  took 
hold  of  him  with  such  power  that  he  felt  impelled  to  go 
out  to  a  saloon  near  by  and  get  a  drink  to  drown  his  con- 
victions, which  he  did  three  times  that  night.  He  united 
with  the  Church  and  became  an  efficient  superintendent 
of  the  Sabbath-school.  For  eight  years  he  was  a  power 
for  good  in  that  community,  as  he  had  been  for  evil  before 
conversion.  He  was  an  educated  man,  and  died  in  the 
triumphs  of  the  Christian  faith,  as  I  was  afterwards  in- 
formed. The  results  of  this  meeting  and  the  year's  work 
greatly  encouraged  me,  and  did  much  to  settle  the  question 
of  my  call  to  the  Gospel  ministry. 

Death  of  My  First  Wife. 

One  of  the  severest  trials  of  my  life  took  place  this 
year;  namely,  the  sudden  and  unexpected  death  of  my 
much  endeared  wife  and  efficient  helper  in  my  work.  It 
was  a  terrible  blow,  that  well-nigh  unmanned  me  and 
seriously  affected  my  health,  besides  leaving  on  my  hands 
a  helpless  babe,  a  month  old,  with  no  relatives  within  three 
thousand  miles  to  take  care  of  him.  But  God  put  into  the 
heart  of  a  kind  woman  (Mrs.  Hitchcock),  who  acted  as 
mother  to  that  dear  boy  (John  C,  now  of  Colfax,  this 


LIFE  IN  HAWAIIAN  ISLANDS.  21 

State).  We  laid  her  away  in  the  little  cemetery  under 
the  pines  of  the  Sierras  to  await  the  resurrection  of  the 
just.  The  funeral  services  were  very  largely  attended 
and  deeply  impressive.  The  Rev.  Frank  Rawlins,  who 
had  known  her  as  a  girl  during  his  and  my  college  days 
at  Old  Asbury,  conducted  the  services,  using  as  the  text, 
"What  we  know  not  now,  we  shall  know  hereafter."  This 
was  my  comfort  in  that  great  sorrow  and  bereavement. 

Ann  Staunton  Cowgill,  my  first  wife,  was  the  daughter 
of  Hon.  John  Cowgill,  judge  of  the  District  Court  of 
Indiana.  She  was  a  woman  of  deep  and  intelligent  piety, 
and  eminently  fitted  to  fill  her  position  as  a  Methodist 
preacher's  wife.  I  regarded  myself  greatly  fortunate  in 
this  union,  as  did  the  people  in  my  .first  charge  in  Cali- 
fornia. My  success  in  my  first  charge  was  due  in  no  small 
measure  to  her  valuable  help.  I  make  this  tender  testi- 
monial due  to  her  memory  who  was  my  devoted  and  effi- 
cient companion.    Her  death  occurred  June  1,  1853. 

My  second  appointment  in  California  was  Santa  Cruz, 
on  the  seacoast.  Here  I  remained  two  and  one-half  years 
with  impaired  health,  but  in  an  unfavorable  climate  for 
me.  I  did  my  usual  amount  of  work.  I  was  given  a 
vacation  of  three  months,  and  went  to  the  Hawaiian,  or 
as  they  were  then  called,  the  Sandwich  Islands,  with  hope 
of  improvement,  and  found  some  help  by  this  change. 

Life  in  the  Hawaiian  Islands. 

The  next  Conference  decided  to  make  Honolulu  an  ap- 
pointment, and  sent  me  to  it.  Here  I  remained  three 
years.  I  found  seven  members,  Americans  and  English, 
and  organized  a  Methodist  Church.  The  second  year  of 
my  pastorate  here  we  built  a  church  and  parsonage,  at  a 
cost  of  about  six  thousand  dollars,  and  had  a  gracious  re- 
vival that  increased  the  membership  to  about  fifty.  I 
labored  in  this  revival  ninety  successive  days,  preaching 
every  night  and  on  Sabbaths  twice,  without  any  ministerial 
help.  It  was  to  my  surprise  and  that  of  my  people,  that 
I  seemed  as  fresh  at  the  close  as  at  the  beginning,  both  as 
to  voice  and  bodily  health.    Every  night  there  were  only 


22  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

two  or  three  seekers,  which  accounts  for  the  long  pro- 
tracted effort.  The  loss  of  my  companion,  and  the  conse- 
quent impairment  of  my  health,  resulted  in  a  deeper  re- 
ligious consecration  and  growth  in  grace  under  the  bless- 
ings of  God,  I  am  glad  to  record. 

During  my  pastorate  here  I  received  a  letter  from  a 
Christian  lady  in  Iowa,  that  did  me  much  good  in  settling 
my  doubts  touching  my  call  to  the  ministry.  This  letter 
was  wholly  unexpected,  and  from  a  person  I  did  not  know 
by  her  then  present  name.  She  introduced  herself  by  ask- 
ing if  I  remembered  preaching  frequently  at  the  home  of  a 
Mr.  Caps,  while  attending  college  at  Old  Asbury,  in  Green- 
castle,  Indiana.  She  said:  "I  was  then  a  small  girl,  about 
eight  or  nine  years  old.  Your  earnest  and  pointed  sermons 
took  hold  of  my  childish  heart,  and  became  the  means 
under  God  of  my  conversion.  I  have  followed  your  course 
with  great  interest,  and  take  this  opportunity  of  expressing 
my  sincere  gratitude  for  your  kindly  interest  in  preaching 
in  our  neighborhood  and  in  our  house,  and  for  its  gracious 
results  on  my  own  life  and  on  others  in  that  community." 
I  have  learned  from  other  sources  that  this  woman  was 
at  this  time  superintendent  of  the  State  public  schools  of 
Iowa,  and  was  prominent  in  Church  and  State  for  her 
ability.  I  said  on  receiving  this  letter,  "Thank  God  for 
such  a  convert !" 

The  Lord  knew  how  much  I  needed  this  word  of  com- 
fort and  encouragement,  and  sent  it  all  the  way  from 
Iowa  to  the  Sandwich  Islands. 

Second  Marriage. 

Another  event  of  supreme  importance  and  value  to  me 
while  in  these  islands  was  my  second  marriage,  during 
a  vacation  from  Honolulu,  to  Miss  Susan  E.  Beecher, 
at  Stockton,  California,  after  four  years  as  a  lonely  wid- 
ower. This  union  I  regard  as  one  of  the  greatest  and 
sweetest  fortunes  of  my  life.  Her  qualifications  as  wife 
and  helper  in  my  work  as  pastor  and  teacher,  of  which  ten 
years  were  in  the  educational  field,  were  all  that  could  be 
desired.    She  was  a  graduate  of  New  York  State  Normal 


EDUCATIONAL  WORK.  23 

School,  and  was  a  born  teacher.  Of  this  union  we  have 
had  four  children,  two  boys  and  two  girls.  My  second 
son,  William  B.,  was  born  at  Honolulu.  Our  boy  Charles 
left  us  at  an  early  age.  The  surviving  children  are  a  credit 
and  great  comfort  to  us  as  good  and  intelligent  citizens. 
The  recent  death  of  Mrs.  Turner  has  made  a  painful  void 
in  my  home.  It  never  will  be  filled  till  our  union  in  the 
better  and  larger  life.  My  Sandwich  Islands  experience 
is  among  the  most  valuable  of  my  life  in  some  respects, 
and  I  often  run  over  it.  During  my  residence  there  I  made 
a  visit  to  the  great  volcano  on  the  Island  of  Hawaii,  the 
largest  of  the  group.  This  was  in  the  year  1857.  I  also 
ascended  Mauna  Kea,  being  fourteen  thousand  feet  above 
sea-level,  and  considered  the  highest  mountain  in  the 
Pacific  Ocean,  the  account  of  which  was  published  in  The 
National  Magazine  in  1857.  An  incident  connected  with 
the  published  account  here  given,  is  that  Mark  Twain 
appropriated  a  large  part  of  said  article  in  his  celebrated 
lecture  on  the  Sandwich  Islands,  without  giving  due  credit 
for  it;  but  I  forgive  him,  inasmuch  as  he  told  his  hearers 
that  the  most  remarkable  fact  was,  "that  these  Islands 
were  entirely  surrounded  with  water,"  the  best  original 
hit  of  the  lecture. 

My  associations  with  the  old  missionaries  there  were 
cordial  and  pleasant.  They  showed  me  many  kindnesses 
and  sympathy  in  my  work  while  there,  though  of  a  differ- 
ent faith. 

Educational  Work. 

I  returned  to  California  in  September,  1859,  and  was 
appointed  to  Downieville,  a  mining  town  in  the  Sierra 
Nevada  Mountains.  From  this  place  I  was  called  to  a 
professorship  in  the  University  of  the  Pacific,  in  Santa 
Clara.  Here  I  remained  two  years,  and  was  called  to  the 
principalship  of  the  Napa  Collegiate  Institute,  located  at 
Napa  City.  Here  I  remained  six  years,  and  resigned  on 
account  of  impaired  health. 

Ten  years  of  my  ministerial  life  have  been  spent  in 
the  educational  work  of  the  Church.    My  most  congenial 


24  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

work  is  the  pastorate,  yet  my  years  spent  in  college  work 
have  been  valuable  to  me  personally,  and  I  hope  to  hun- 
dreds of  young  men  and  women  with  whom  I  have  come 
in  contact  in  the  professor's  chair  in  the  University  of  the 
Pacific  and  in  the  principalship  of  the  Napa  Collegiate 
Institute  in  California.  During  these  ten  years  I  preached 
almost  every  Sabbath  once,  and  thus  kept  in  touch  with 
my  favorite  calling — preaching.  In  frontier  work,  on 
account  of  the  importance  of  founding  seminaries  and  col- 
leges, Methodist  preachers  are  necessarily  called  to  teach, 
as  salaries  are  so  small  in  struggling  colleges  that  laymen 
are  not  available.  I  was  urged  by  my  Conference  to  con- 
sent to  teach  for  these  reasons,  and  I  feared  to  refuse.  I 
gave  two  years  to  the  University  of  the  Pacific  in  English 
Literature  and  Latin  classes,  and  seven  years  as  principal 
of  Napa  Collegiate  Institute,  and  a  brief  period  as  presi- 
dent of  Spokane  College.  I  founded  the  Napa  Collegiate 
Institute,  and  personally  owned  the  property.  When 
health  failed  me  I  presented  the  school  to  the  California 
Conference,  rather  than  take  a  good  price  for  it  from 
the  Catholics,  who  were  anxious  to  buy  it  of  me.  It  was 
finally  consolidated  with  the  University  of  the  Pacific 
after  several  years  of  considerable  prosperity.  During 
these  years  of  work  in  this  Institute  I  have  reason  to  be- 
lieve a  goodly  number  of  students  were  converted.  A 
good  Methodist  school  greatly  fails  of  its  purpose  unless 
it  is  blest  with  converts  as  well  as  scholars.  I  hold  pre- 
cious memories  of  these  years,  and  feel  the  value  of  the 
discipline  they  necessarily  gave  me.  I  can  not,  as  I  call 
up  this  history,  regret  the  providences  that  called  me  into 
this  work.  God  may  know  that  it  was  better  for  me  upon 
the  whole,  and  for  the  Church,  than  an  uninterrupted  pas- 
torate would  have  been.    I  try  now  to  so  regard  it. 

In  the  Saddle  as  Presiding  Elder. 

My  two  next  pastorates  were  at  Fairfield  and  Peta- 
luma.  Part  of  one  year  I  was  laid  aside  from  active  work. 
With  improved  health  I  was  made  Presiding  Elder  on 
Petaluma  District.    During  my  four  years'  term  (the  term 


IN  SADDLE,  AS  PRESIDING  BLDUR.         25 

was  then  four  years)  I  missed  only  one  appointment,  and 
that  was  on  account  of  a  swollen  river.  My  district 
reached  from  Sausalito,  near  San  Francisco,  to  the  Ore- 
gon line,  and  included  some  twelve  hundred  miles  of  travel 
each  quarter,  which  was  largely  done  on  horseback.  This 
conduced  greatly  to  bodily  health. 

On  this  district  I  had  experiences  both  amusing  and 
serious.  One  of  these  was  at  an  appointment  at  a  place 
called  Lower  Lake.  A  gentleman  who  posed  as  a  skeptic, 
and  fond  of  debate,  insisted  upon  my  enjoying  his  hos- 
pitality, and,  as  was  supposed,  to  gratify  his  desire  for  a 
theological  discussion.  I  consented;  but  with  a  hint  from 
one  who  knew  his  love  of  debate,  I  determined  not  to  be 
drawn  out.  He  made  several  attempts  during  the  evening 
to  engage  me;  but  I  evaded  and  diverted  his  attention  to 
something  else.  In  the  morning  at  breakfast  he  renewed 
the  attack,  but  with  no  better  results.  While  I  was  sad- 
dling my  animal  to  leave  he  said:  "Mr.  Turner,  can  you 
inform  me  where  the  devil  came  from?"  I  replied  that 
I  thought  he  came  from  "Arkansaw"  (Arkansas),  as  he 
had  informed  me  that  was  his  home  State.  I  bade  him 
"good-bye,"  and  never  had  a  second  invitation.  I  confess 
that  I  felt  a  little  mean  to  be  under  stress  to  thus  treat 
my  host,  but  I  was  well  convinced  that  his  hospitality 
was  not  generous  or  sincere,  and  let  him  know  that  I 
felt  so. 

At  another  time  I  was  overtaken  by  night,  and  put  up 
at  a  hotel  in  a  place  called  Cloverdale.  In  the  hotel  office 
I  found  a  good  fire  in  an  old-fashioned  fireplace.  I 
greatly  enjoyed  it,  as  the  weather  was  wet  and  chilly. 
Presently  a  man  came  in  and  sat  down  by  me,  and  en- 
gaged me  in  conversation.  He  thought  he  scented  a 
preacher  in  me,  for  which  I  was  seldom  taken,  as  my 
dress  was  not  particularly  of  the  clerical  order.  He  ven- 
tured to  inform  me  that  he  had  decided  views  against  the 
Bible,  and  proceeded  to  air  his  opinions  of  it.  I,  of  course, 
allowed  him  to  go  on  without  any  molestation.  Finally  I 
suggested  that,  from  his  view  of  the  Book  that  he  had  at- 
tacked, it  was  an  unreliable  piece  of  history,  and  not  of  a 


26  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

very  high  order  of  morals.  He  replied  that  he  certainly 
thought  so.  I  ventured  to  ask  him  his  opinion  of  the 
origin  of  man,  and  his  authority  for  that  opinion.  I  pro- 
posed, inasmuch  as  he  had  proved  to  his  entire  satisfac- 
tion that  the  Bible  was  utterly  unreliable  as  a  piece  of 
history,  that  we  agree  to  shut  it  out  of  court  respecting 
the  origin  of  man.    To  this  he  readily  agreed. 

"Where  did  you  get  that  name?  Your  call  yourself  a 
man.  I  deny  it.  I  say  you  are  a  lineal  descendant  of  the 
jackass  family.    I  say  you  are  an  improved  monkey." 

But  he  rejoined,  "Does  not  the  Bible  call  him  man?" 

"Yes,  but  you  say  it  is  unreliable  as  a  piece  of  history, 
and  you  agreed  to  shut  it  out  as  testimony  in  this  partic- 
ular discussion." 

This  narrowed  the  discussion,  and  soon  ended  it.  I 
had,  however,  to  apologize  to  the  gentleman  (?)  for  what 
I  had  said  about  our  descent  from  the  jackass  and  monkey, 
because  if  the  Bible  was  not  true  it  was  as  hard  on  me  as 
on  him.  I  was  unwilling  to  rest  under  the  imputation 
that  his  view  placed  me  under,  and  apologized  for  the 
dilemma  in  which  it  placed  both  of  us.  We  soon  ad- 
journed to  supper,  and  have  never  met  since. 

I  also  had  on  this  California  District  a  very  serious 
and  fearful  experience  one  night.  I  had  ridden  my  trusty 
mare  about  forty  miles  that  day  through  a  sparsely-settled 
country.  I  came  into  a  little  valley  called  "White  Thorn." 
There  was  one  farm,  and  room  for  no  more.  The  occupant 
was  a  man  called  "Dutch  Jake."  He  lived  in  a  "shake" 
cabin  with  only  one  room  and  lean-to,  an  apology  for  a 
kitchen.  Here  I  was  to  stay  for  the  night.  Presently  two 
rough-looking  men  entered,  and  seemed  to  make  themselves 
at  home.  I  had  arranged  with  the  proprietor  to  stop  with 
him  for  the  night.  I  surveyed  the  room  to  see  where  I  was 
to  sleep.  There  were  only  three  bunks  in  the  hotel  for 
four  of  us,  and  this  the  only  hotel  within  thirty-five  miles. 
The  evening  passed  to  me  very  unpleasantly,  and  was  of 
a  nature  to  awaken  in  me  apprehensions  for  my  safety. 
The  conversation  of  the  three  was  -well-seasoned  with  pro- 
fanity and  coarse  vulgarity.     Being  tired  by  the  day's 


IN  SADDLE  AS  PRESIDING  ELDER.         27 

ride  I  asked  permission  to  retire.  There  were  two  bunks, 
one  above  the  other,  and  one  single  and  wider.  I  took 
the  lower  of  the  two,  as  I  did  not  care  to  sleep  double. 
The  wider  bunk  was  occupied  by  "Dutch  Jake"  and  one  of 
the  others.  I  tried  to  sleep,  but  utterly  failed  during  the 
entire  night.  A  constant  whispering  was  kept  up  by  the 
two  men  in  the  large  bunk  till  two  or  three  o'clock  in  the 
morning.  This  greatly  increased  my  apprehension.  In 
the  morning  at  breakfast  the  man  who  did  much  of  the 
whispering  during  the  night  asked  me  where  I  was  bound 
for.  I  replied  that  I  was  going  to  Usol.  He  said  he  was 
too.  I  did  not  want  his  company,  but  did  not  say  so.  I 
felt  then,  more  than  ever,  that  there  was  mischief  ahead. 
I  paid  my  bill,  and  went  to  the  stable  and  saddled  my  mare. 
The  other  man  did  the  same.  We  started  together  and 
soon  reached  the  dense  Redwood  forest,  where  there  was 
only  a  narrow  trail.  For  thirty-five  miles  there  was  noth- 
ing but  forest.  But  before  entering  the  woods  I  alighted 
from  my  horse,  and  pretended  to  tighten  my  saddle.  This 
I  did  to  get  him  to  enter  before  me.  In  this  I  was  suc- 
cessful. He  soon  began  to  interview  me.  He  was  well 
armed  with  pistol  and  knives.  He  inquired  my  name  and 
business.  I  was  glad  of  this.  I  told  him  I  was  a  Methodist 
preacher,  and  where  I  lived. 

Said  he,  "We  thought  you  were  a  large  lumber  mer- 
chant from  Humboldt  or  San  Francisco." 

I  said:  "In  this  you  were  greatly  mistaken.  In  this 
world's  goods  I  am  a  poor  man,  but  I  am  the  child  of 
a  King  and  an  heir  of  heaven." 

He  looked  surprised  and  disappointed.  My  time  to 
ask  questions  came  to  my  help  surprisingly. 

"May  I  ask  your  name?" 

"My  name  is  Jimmy  Smith." 

"Well,  Mr.  Smith,  I  was  much  shocked  and  ashamed 
of  your  coarse  and  vulgar  talk  last  night  with  those  men 
where  we  staid.  Of  course,  being  a  minister  I  could  not 
engage  in  it,  as  you  must  have  observed.  Mr.  Smith, 
where  is  your  home  ?" 

"My  people  live  in  San  Jose." 


28  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

"Do  they  know  the  life  you  are  leading  in  this  out-of- 
the-way  place?" 

"No,  they  would  be  mortified  and  heart-broken  did 
they  know  how  I  am  behaving." 

"My  dear  sir,  if  you  are  engaged  in  any  legitimate 
business  here,  there  is  no  good  reason  that  you  should  let 
yourself  down  to  a  base  life." 

He  informed  me  that  his  parents  were  members  of  the 
Episcopal  Church.  Having  lived  about  San  Jose  and 
Santa  Clara  for  two  or  three  years,  and  being  connected 
with  the  Methodist  College  there,  I  questioned  him  closely 
till  I  satisfied  myself  that  he  told  me  the  truth.  He  re- 
membered my  being  connected  with  the  college.  I  had 
in  my  saddlebags  a  lunch  that  I  had  saved  from  the  day 
before,  which  I  shared  with  him  at  noon  near  a  mountain 
stream.  He  became  interested  in  me  before  the  journey 
ended,  and  when  we. reached  Usol  we  put  up  at  the  same 
and  only  hotel.  On  my  leaving  he  insisted  on  paying  my 
bill,  which  I  declined  at  first,  but  which  I  finally  assented 
to  on  account  of  his  great  urgency.  My  being  a  Methodist 
preacher  saved  me  from  robbery,  and  probably  saved  my 
life.    I  am  satisfied  the  plan  was  robbery. 

In  traveling  over  this  trail  frequently  after  this  in  my 
official  business,  I  learned  that  Smith  had  related  what  a 
lecture  I  had  administered  to  him  and  his  comrades  about 
their  vulgarity  and  profanity  that  night.  Ever  after  as 
I  passed,  "Dutch  Jake"  and  others  lifted  their  hats,  all 
growing  out  of  this  incident.  So  you  see  that  I  made  no 
serious  mistake  in  choosing  the  calling  of  a  Methodist 
minister  instead  of  the  law,  this  time  at  least. 

One  other  case  I  feel  inclined  to  mention,  as  it  seems 
pertinent  here,  touching  my  call  to  the  ministry.  One  day 
while  riding  along  I  was  overtaken  by  a  man  on  horse- 
back. He  accosted  me  with  a  "Good-day,  sir,"  which  I 
cordially  returned.  We  rode  together  with  slackened  pace 
for  two  or  three  miles,  I  should  think.  He  seemed  free 
in  talk,  and  also  in  questions  as  to  my  place  and  occu- 
pation, to  which  I  answered  frankly.  He  questioned  me 
closely  as  to  how  much  I  received  for  my  extensive  travel 


IN  SADDLE  AS  PRESIDING  ELDER.         29 

and  preaching.  I  told  him  that  I  had  no  fixed  or  certain 
salary.  "Well,  approximately  how  much  do  you  get?" 
I  replied,  that  if  I  get  for  the  balance  of  the  year  in  pro- 
portion to  what  I  have  already  received,  it  would  amount 
to  $900  or  $1,000,  my  traveling  expenses  to  come  out  of 
it.  "O,"  said  he,  "that  don't  pay."  I  replied:  "From 
your  point  of  view  I  suppose  not;  but,  my  friend,  I  am 
not  in  this  business  for  the  money  there  is  in  it.  I  could 
engage  in  some  other  business  where  I  might  realize  three 
or  four  times  as  much."  He  said  that  he  could  not  under- 
stand it.  I  told  him  I  was  strongly  inclined  to  believe  him. 
I  do  not  think  an  unconverted  man  can  understand  it, 
whose  whole  soul  and  energy  are  absorbed  in  money- 
getting.  I  began  to  put  some  pertinent  and  direct  ques- 
tions to  him  concerning  his  religious  obligation  to  God, 
and  soon  found  that  he  had  no  taste  for  the  subject,  and 
put  whip  to  his  horse  and  bade  me  good-bye.  Why  should 
the  subject  of  religion  be  less  interesting  and  unwelcome 
than  money-getting,  unless  men  are  estranged  from  God? 
On  my  first  round  on  the  Petaluma  District  as  Presid- 
ing Elder  I  got  lost,  and  lay  out  two  nights  in  succession. 
I  was  accompanied  by  an  old  frontier  local  preacher  by 
the  name  of  Silas  Bennett.  After  leaving  the  Round  Val- 
ley Indian  Reservation  for  the  north,  we  were  without 
roads  for  eighty  miles.  The  country  was  traversed  with 
trails,  and  these  so  cut  up  and  crossed  with  cattle  trails 
that  it  was  difficult  for  a  stranger  to  keep  his  course.  The 
settlements  were  few  and  many  miles  apart,  and  that  in- 
creased the  difficulty.  It  was  the  second  day  out  that  we 
lost  our  way.  As  evening  drew  near  a  heavy  fog  came  in 
from  the  coast,  and  not  knowing  where  we  were,  or 
whether  there  was  a  habitation  within  miles  of  us,  I  sug- 
gested that  we  stop  and  camp  for  the  night.  Father  Ben- 
nett, however,  insisted  that  we  go  on  further.  Presently 
night  set  in,  and  the  dense  fog  intensified  the  darkness. 
Presently  Brother  Bennett's  horse  refused  to  go,  though 
he  urged  him  with  the  spur.  I  entreated  him  to  stop,  and 
wait  for  the  day.  Rain  set  in,  so  that  we  could  not  lie 
down  to  rest.    We  made  a  fire  and  kept  as  comfortable  as 


30  STORY  OF  MY  LIVE. 

possible.  At  the  break  of  day  we  started  to  find  a  trail, 
and  found,  to  our  joy,  that  we  were  within  a  mile  of  a 
house,  weary  and  hungry,  as  we  had  not  eaten  anything 
for  twenty-four  hours.  As  we  drew  near  the  spot  where 
Father  Bennett's  horse  refused  to  go  further,  to  our  great 
horror  we  found  we  had  been  within  ten  feet  of  an  awful 
precipice,  five  hundred  feet  perpendicular.  Our  escape 
from  instant  death  was  frightful  to  behold.  We  thanked 
God  for  the  instinct  of  the  horse,  that  served  us  better 
than  our  own  reason.  We  stopped  at  a  rude  farmhouse, 
where  we  and  our  horses  were  well  cared  for.  It  is 
needless  to  say  that  we  had  a  keen  relish  for  the  meal, 
which  we  pronounced  No.  I.  After  rest,  the  host  gave 
us  directions  to  strike  our  lost  trail  some  time  during 
the  day,  but  with  no  better  luck  than  the  day  before.  So 
we  were  out  a  second  night,  and  camped  under  a  spread- 
ing tree  in  a  small  prairie,  and  rested  well  in  body,  if  not 
in  mind.  It  is  not  pleasant  to  be  lost  in  a  strange  country. 
Early  in  the  following  day  we  reached  a  small  village 
called  Blocksburg,  having  a  store,  a  blacksmith's-shop, 
and  three  or  four  dwellings. 

Two  Remarkable  Conversions. 

Some  notable  cases  of  remarkable  conversions  have 
come  under  my  personal  knowledge.  Two  occurred  in 
Honolulu  in  1858  (see  Appendix),  and  one  at  Clear  Lake, 
California,  during  my  labors  on  the  Petaluma  District. 
I  had  completed  a  round  on  the  district,  and  had  been 
absent  ten  weeks.  This  was  usual  with  me  because  of  the 
shape  of  my  district.  It  was  more  than  three  hundred 
miles  long,  and  not  more  than  a  third  as  wide.  My  stay 
at  home  was  not  more  than  eight  to  ten  days  in  every 
twelve  weeks.  One  day  while  in  my  room  making  prepa- 
rations to  start  on  my  next  trip,  a  vivid  impression  came 
to  me  to  call  on  Moses  Austin,  my  nearest  neighbor,  before 
leaving  the  next  day.  This  impression  seemed  as  vivid 
as  if  an  audible  voice  had  spoken  the  words.  I  dismissed 
it  as  if  it  was  an  illusion,  and  resumed  my  preparation. 
But  in  a  moment  or  two  it  came  with  greater  force  and 


TWO  REMARKABLE  CONVERSIONS.         31 

clearness,  "You  go  and  see  Moses  Austin  before  you  leave 
home !"  I  went  out  of  my  room  immediately,  and  said  to 
Mrs.  Turner,  "I  am  going  over  to  Mr.  Austin,"  without 
telling  her  what  had  transpired.  Mentally,  I  am  not  given 
to  making  account  of  hearing  voices  and  following  ordi- 
nary impressions ;  but  I  did  not  feel  at  liberty  to  treat  this 
case  lightly.  At  first  I  said,  "It  is  no  use,  he  is  an  incor- 
rigible infidel,  and  it  will  avail  nothing  to  go ;"  but  I  went. 
I  found  him  at  home,  which  was  rather  an  unlikely  thing 
at  that  hour  of  the  day.  Somehow  I  was  impelled  to 
hasten,  and  went  cross  lots.  I  rapped  at  his  door,  and  he 
answered  the  knock  and  invited  me  in  as  if  he  expected 
me.  We  passed  the  usual  civilities,  and  he  very  soon  put 
this  question  to  me,  "Mr.  Turner,  why  are  not  all  men 
Christians?"  I  instantly  replied  without  premeditation: 
"Because  they  do  n't  want  to  be.  I  mean  those  who  know 
what  Christianity  is."  He  emphatically  dissented  from 
my  reply.  He  could  not  see  it  in  that  light.  I  asked  him 
these  pertinent  questions :  "Has  God  amply  provided  sal- 
vation for  the  world?"  "Yes,  I  suppose  so."  "Has  He 
given  men  natural  and  gracious  ability  to  become  Chris- 
tians?" "The  Bible  seems  to  teach  so."  "Are  the  invi- 
tations of  God  and  His  Son,  Jesus  Christ,  large,  gracious, 
and  sincere  to  come  and  accept?"  "Yes,  they  appear  so." 
"Then,  why  do  they  not  come  and  accept  them  ?"  "It  seems 
to  me,  then,  they  are  not  Christians  because  they  don't 
want  to  be;  they  want  to  be  something  else  more  than  they 
want  to  be  Christians."  "O,  I  can  not  accept  that  view  of 
it."  "Mr.  Austin,  are  you  willing  that  I  should  read  from 
the  Word  of  God,  and  are  you  willing  to  get  down  with 
me  and  let  us  ask  God  about  this  question  you  have  put 
to  me?"  He  declined  my  offer  to  read  and  pray  to  God 
for  light.  I  said :  "Mr.  Austin,  this  is  your  house,  and  you 
have  a  right  to  decline  my  offer ;  and  I  am  too  much  of  a 
gentleman  to  insist  on  it  in  your  home."  He  still  de- 
clined, and  I  told  him  it  was  useless  for  him  and  me  to  go 
into  a  long  discussion  of  the  matter,  and  that  my  time 
would  not  permit  me  to  do  so  now. 

I  took  my  hat  to  depart,  and  it  came  to  my  mind  that 


32  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

I  had  a  sick  horse  in  my  stable,  and  that  he  needed  atten- 
tion, and  as  both  of  my  sons  were  absent  from  home,  I 
asked  him  if  he  would  assist  me  in  giving  it  some  medicine. 
He  said,  "Certainly,"  for  he  was  a  kind  neighbor.  As  we 
were  passing  to  my  home  I  laid  my  hand  softly  on  his 
shoulder,  and  said,  "Mr.  Austin,  the  reason  that  you  are 
not  a  Christian,  is  because  you  do  n't  want  to  be.'*  He 
looked  me  full  in  the  face,  but  made  no  reply.  I  saw  he 
was  feeling  deeply.  Presently  I  laid  my  hand  on  his 
shoulder  the  second  time,  and  repeated  the  same  words. 
1  observed  he  was  stirred  with  deep  emotion.  When  we 
reached  the  stable  and  were  entering,  I  laid  my  hand  softly 
on  his  shoulder  and  said,  "My  brother,  the  reason  you 
are  not  a  Christian  is  because  you  do  n't  want  to  be." 
He  burst  into  tears  and  said,  "O,  Mr.  Turner,  pray  for 
me."  I  gave  him  such  encouragement  and  help  as  I 
could;  but  he  was  so  much  agitated  that  in  giving  the 
animal  medicine  he  spilled  most  of  it;  but  I  took  the  will 
for  the  deed. 

You  will  be  surprised,  as  I  was  after  I  learned  the  case, 
that  he  was  under  deep  conviction  for  his  sins  and  had 
been  seeking  religion  for  weeks  when  I  went  to  see  him 
and  requested  to  read  the  Bible  and  pray  with  him  in  his 
own  home,  and  yet  declined  to  have  me  do  so,  and  ask 
God  why  he  was  not  a  Christian.  He  had  been  going  out 
into  the  woods  and  brush  for  days  to  pray,  and  took  his 
gun  with  him  to  make  the  neighbors  think  he  was  after 
game.  An  old  lady  by  the  name  of  Piner,  who  lived  near 
him,  had  observed  when  he  came  in  from  hunting  that  his 
knees  were  wet  from  kneeling,  and  learned  from  him  after 
his  conversion  that  the  gun  was  used  for  the  sole  purpose 
of  concealing  his  convictions.  When  I  called  he  was  under 
strong  temptation  to  conceal  his  religious  convictions,  for 
he  well  knew  that  I  had  full  knowledge  of  his  open  infi- 
delity in  that  community.  He  had  ridiculed  the  Bible  and 
religion  in  the  presence  of  his  wife  and  two  beautiful 
young  daughters,  and  to  have  me  ask  him  to  take  the  Bible 
on  the  stand  and  read  it  in  their  presence  at  this  time, 
after  asking  me  the  question  he  did,  was  too  much  for  his 


TWO  REMARKABLE  CONVERSIONS.         33 

pride ;  and  he,  like  a  moral  coward,  refused  to  do  the  very 
thing  he  in  his  soul  wanted  done.  But  I  am  perfectly  con- 
vinced that  God  sent  me  that  day  to  help  him  all  I  could 
in  his  struggle  to  find  Christ  and  salvation.  It  is  not  pos- 
sible that  I  could  have  known  that  he  had  any  thought  or 
desire  to  become  a  Christian.  Had  any  one  intimated 
that  there  was  any  probability  of  his  becoming  an  active 
Christian,  I  should  have  been  exceedingly  skeptical  about 
such  a  probability.  When  I  returned  to  my  own  home, 
after  parting  with  him  at  the  stable,  I  said  to  Mrs. 
Turner:  "Mother,  I  believe  Moses  Austin  will  be  a  con- 
verted man  and  be  an  earnest  Christian  before  I  get  back 
from  my  next  trip,"  telling  her  of  what  had  transpired. 

Some  person  had  put  a  book  named  "Nelson  on  Infi- 
delity" in  his  hand,  which,  under  God's  blessing,  com- 
pletely overthrew  his  infidelity,  and  led  him  to  Christ. 
According  to  my  expectation,  after  my  return  I  learned 
of  his  happy  conversion  and  union  with  the  Church.  I 
asked  him  if  my  reply  to  his  question,  "Why  the  world 
are  not  Christians?"  was  the  correct  one  in  his  case  and 
that  of  all  enlightened  sinners."  He  replied,  "It  is  cor- 
rect." 

Permit  me  to  narrate  the  effect  his  conversion  had 
upon  his  boon  companions  in  sin  and  on  the  community 
largely.  Mr.  Austin  was  the  ringleader  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  a  little  knot  of  skeptics,  and  was  influential  among 
men  who  frequented  the  saloons  of  the  town  of  Kelsey- 
ville.  His  conversion  produced  a  sensation  among  his 
class.  One  night  in  the  prominent  saloon  of  the  place  his 
conversion  was  the  subject  of  comment  and  doubt.  So  a 
committee  of  two  was  appointed  to  visit  Austin  and  report. 
He  lived  out  of  town  some  distance.  They  called  on  him 
one  night  to  satisfy  themselves  about  the  rumors  concern- 
ing his  conversion.  They  came  and  were  welcomed  with 
the  same  cordiality  and  frankness  that  he  commonly  mani- 
fested. The  evening  was  spent  in  pleasant  conversation 
on  neighborhood  topics,  and  when  the  time  came  that  the 
visitors  began  to  show  signs  of  taking  leave,  without  ask- 
ing any  direct  questions  about  their  mission,  Austin  broke 

3 


34  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

in,  anticipating  their  special  business,  and  remarked: 
"Gentlemen,  I  suppose  you  have  heard  something  of  my 
change  of  life  and  conversion?  It  is  true,  I  have  changed. 
We  have  been  good  friends  and  boon  companions  for 
several  years,  and  I  am  glad  to  say  that  I  believe  that  I 
have  found  a  better  way  to  live.  Now,  if  you  have  no 
objections,  I  will  be  glad  to  read  a  chapter  from  the 
Bible  and  have  a  word  of  prayer  before  you  depart."  Of 
course,  to  that  they  could  not  decidedly  object,  and  con- 
sented. He  read  and  read  impressively  from  the  old 
Family  Bible.  In  prayer,  he  asked  God's  blessing  on  the 
visitors  and  on  all  his  old  associates  in  sin,  that  God's 
truth  might  find  them,  as  it  had  him.  The  prayer  was 
also  impressive  and  tender,  and  I  hope  made  a  salutary 
impression  on  the  visitors.  On  their  return  to  the  saloon 
they  reported  that,  in  their  opinion,  there  was  a  great 
change  in  Austin,  and  that  there  was  no  doubt  he  was 
truly  converted.  When  I  last  heard  from  him  through 
others  he  was  faithful  and  active  in  Church  work,  and  this 
occurred  over  thirty  years  ago. 

The  incident  of  the  conversion  of  Moses  Austin  made 
so  deep  an  impression  on  my  mind,  that  while  passing 
from  the  stable  to  my  house  this  passage  of  Scripture  came 
to  me  with  such  force  and  pertinence  to  what  had  trans- 
pired in  the  last  two  hours  that  a  whole  sermon  lay  in 
outline  before  me  without  premeditation.  It  is  this,  "Ye 
will  not  come  unto  Me  that  ye  might  have  life."  This  has 
been  among  the  most  effective  sermons  in  my  ministry. 
Not  a  great  sermon  for  some  men,  but  effective  for  me, 
because  God  made  it  such  by  my  connection  with  the  facts 
related  in  this  notable  conversion.  It  seemed  to  me  some- 
thing of  a  revelation,  as  I  had  no  possible  knowledge  of 
that  man's  spiritual  state  and  the  conflict  he  was  passing 
through  from  infidelity  to  faith  in  Christ.  I  know  now 
that  God  does  reveal  some  things  to  susceptible  souls,  that 
they  could  not  know  otherwise. 

During  my  connection  with  the  Napa  Collegiate  Insti- 
tute in  California,  some  time  in  the  year  1865,  I  was  called 
up  in  the  night  to  come  to  the  bedside  of  a  Mr.  Samuel 


TWO  REMARKABLE  CONVERSIONS.         35 

Heald,  who  was  supposed  to  be  dying.  He  was  a  fine 
type  of  a  moral  business  man,  and  an  active  temperance 
advocate.  The  doctor  had  announced  to  the  family  that 
nothing  more  could  be  done  for  the  patient,  and  the  family 
had  gathered  in  anxious  suspense  to  witness  the  depar- 
ture. Mrs.  Heald  was  anxious  that  I  should  talk  with  her 
husband  about  his  outlook  for  the  future.  His  mind  was 
perfectly  clear.  I  said:  "Friend  Heald  (for  we  were  firm 
friends),  are  you  ready  for  the  change  awaiting  you?'' 
He  was  satisfied  the  end  was  very  near.  He  said,  "No, 
I  am  not,  I  fear."  "Can  you  not  throw  yourself  on  the 
mercy  of  God  through  Jesus  Christ?"  "No,  that  would 
be  a  cowardly  and  unmanly  act.  I  have  known  for  years 
that  I  ought  to  be  an  active  Christian,  but  have  tried  to 
satisfy  myself  that  morality  would  do."  I  urged  him  to 
make  the  surrender  now,  and  that  God  would  accept  him 
and  Jesus  would  save  him  at  this  late  hour,  even  "the 
eleventh  hour;"  but  he  adhered  to  his  feeling  that  it  would 
be  unmanly  to  ask  God  for  salvation  now.  I  felt  under  the 
circumstances  of  his  firmness  at  some  loss  what  reply  to 
make;  but  I  finally  said:  "Brother  Heald,  if  you  were 
certain  that  God  would,  so  to  speak,  meet  you  half  way 
and  protract  your  life,  would  you  be  manly  enough  to 
become  a  Christian?"  "I  most  certainly  would."  Now 
a  sudden  change  took  place  that  hour,  and  the  next  day,  to 
the  surprise  of  the  doctor  and  all  of  us  that  had  met  in 
that  chamber  of  death,  Samuel  Heald  got  well.  The  first 
Sabbath  that  he  was  able  to  leave  the  house  he  attended 
the  church,  which  was  "hard  by"  his  dwelling.  I  was 
present  on  that  Sabbath,  and  saw  Mr.  Heald  take  his  seat 
near  the  door.  At  the  close  of  the  sermon  he  arose  and 
asked  permission  to  speak  a  word,  which  was  granted. 
He  referred  to  his  late  sickness,  and  the  promise  he  had 
made  of  God  would  spare  his  life  that  he  would  become 
an  active  Christian.  "I  am  here  before  this  congregation 
and  my  neighbors  to  fulfill  that  vow."  I  need  not  say  that 
there  was  a  breakdown  in  that  Church  that  day.  There 
was  an  honest  man,  and  he  showed  that  God  could  trust 
him.    Samuel  Heald  lived  several  years  after  this.,  and 


36  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

was  a  blessing  to  his  family  and  the  Church.  I  shall 
never  forget  that  night  and  that  Sabbath  in  Napa 
City. 

I  desire  to  make  this  record,  that  much  of  my  best  and 
most  permanent  work  of  my  long  ministry  has  been  ac- 
complished by  my  pastoral  work,  done  tenderly  but  faith- 
fully in  such  cases  as  are  here  recorded. 

Indian  Reservations. 

During  President  Grant's  Administration  the  Indian 
reservations  were  parceled  out  among  the  religious  de- 
nominations of  the  country.  The  Round  Valley  and 
Hoopa  Reservations  of  Northern  California  were  under 
the  care  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  These  were 
both  within  the  bounds  of  my  district,  and  under  my 
special  oversight  in  Church  matters,  as  we  had  pastors  at 
both  reservations.  These  I  visited  quarterly  for  a  period 
of  four  years,  and  had  opportunity  to  see  the  fruits  of 
religious  care  and  improved  social,  educational,  and  re- 
ligious development  on  the  Indian  mind.  They  had  Eng- 
lish schools  in  which  the  children  make  creditable  ad- 
vancement. They  learned  trades,  blacksmiths,  harness- 
makers,  carpenters,  millers,  and  farmers.  I  found  some 
who  were  capable  of  running  engines  in  grist  and  saw 
mills,  and  also  in  the  harvest  fields.  At  the  Round  Valley 
Reservation  I  attended  a  Fourth  of  July  celebration  con- 
ducted largely  by  the  Indians,  that  was  quite  creditable. 
A  boy  fourteen  years  of  age,  who  received  his  education 
in  the  Indian  school,  read  the  Declaration  of  Independ- 
ence, and  threw  in  the  shade  for  excellence  more  than 
three  or  four  readers  that  I  have  heard  at  American  cele- 
brations.   The  Indian  is  a  natural  orator. 

A  large  dinner  for  the  crowd  of  four  of  five  hundred 
people,  white  and  Indian,  was  entirely  in  the  hands  of 
the  Indian  men  and  women.  The  waiters  were  mostly 
well-dressed  women — dresses  made  by  Indian  seam- 
stresses. The  Indians  were  well  behaved — much  better 
than  many  whites  on  such  occasions — showing  careful 
training  on  the  part  of  the  agent  and  teachers  placed  over 


INDIAN  RESERVATIONS.  37 

them.  On  this  occasion  I  heard  an  Indian,  who  had  been 
on  this  reservation  a  few  years  from  rude  barbarism,  say 
publicly  that  day :  "I  begin  to  feel  that  I  am  an  American 
citizen.  I  thank  the  Government  and  the  Church  for  what 
they  are  doing  for  my  people  and  my  own  children/' 
This  he  said  in  broken  English,  and  was  deeply  af- 
fected. 

Rev.  J.  L,.  Burchard,  agent  on  this  reservation,  was  a 
man  of  six  feet  and  two  inches,  weighing  over  two  hun- 
dred pounds,  and  every  inch  a  man  physically,  mentally, 
and  morally.  He  was  loved  and  respected  by  the  Indians, 
and  feared  by  desperate  white  men  who  sometimes 
prowled  about  the  reservation.  He  had  an  Indian  police 
that  he  used  to  good  account  as  occasion  required.  There 
was  a  desperado  called  Texas,  who  gave  them  trouble  by 
bringing  whisky  on  the  grounds,  and  selling  it  to  some  of 
the  Indians.  Burchard  and  two  of  his  police  laid  for 
him  and  caught  him.  Burchard  seized  and  threw  him, 
and  the  police  tied  and  carried  him  to  the  lockup.  This 
act  of  the  agent  greatly  surprised  the  Indians,  who  feared 
Texas.  Another  act  of  Burchard  worthy  of  note  was 
this :  The  reservation  had  a  large  tract  of  fine  pasture 
land,  and  stockmen  trespassed  on  it  with  their  cattle  in 
former  times,  but  learned  that  they  could  not  do  so  under 
his  administration,  so  they  attempted  to  bribe  him.  They 
sent  an  agent  with  a  sack  of  twenty-dollar  gold  pieces  as 
a  nominal  sum  for  the  privilege.  The  man  entered  his 
office  and  laid  the  gold  on  his  table,  and  told  Burchard  that 
was  at  his  personal  disposal.  Burchard  reached  for  his 
heavy  cane,  and  told  him  to  take  the  money  and  leave. 
He  left.  That  agent  was  absolutely  incorruptible.  I  knew 
him  well.  He  was  a  man  of  a  thousand  possessing  re- 
markable administrative  ability,  and  the  most  successful 
agent  I  ever  knew,  unless  it  was  Father  Wilbur  of  the 
Yakima  Reservation  in  the  State  of  Washington. 

There  were  two  Indians  in  our  Church  at  Round  Val- 
ley whom  I  desire  to  mention,  as  to  the  effect  the  Church 
had  upon  the  Indians  generally,  and  these  particularly. 
They  both  professed  conversion,  and  exemplified  it  in 


*8  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

their  lives,  as  did  many  others  whom  I  can  not  speak  of 
in  this  narrative.  One  of  the  two  told  of  his  conversion 
one  day  in  a  love-feast  in  my  hearing.  He  spoke  in 
broken  English.  He  had  been,  by  his  own  and  others' 
account,  a  desperate  man.  He  represented  that  his  "moral 
condition  was  like  a  fellow  with  ragged  clothes,  all  be- 
fouled with  mud  and  filth,  and  who  had  been  washed  clean 
and  dressed  in  clean,  new  clothes."  He  could  not  read 
a  word  of  English,  and  did  not  know  that  the  Bible  says 
that  the  convert  is  "a  new  creature  in  Christ  Jesus."  If 
you  could  have  seen  his  illumined  face  that  day  as  he 
told  his  simple  and  forcible  experience,  you  would  not 
have  doubted  its  reality. 

The  other  case  was  an  Indian  named  Sam  Ray,  a  man 
I  should  say  about  thirty-five  years  old.  He  also  had  been 
a  bad  Indian,  and  had  lived  with  a  notoriously  bad  white 
family  by  the  name  of  Ray  before  coming  to  the  reser- 
vation. He  could  talk  fair  English,  and  usually  spoke 
and  prayed  in  English,  but  was  fluent  in  his  own  tongue. 
He  was  not  boisterous  or  demonstrative,  as  some  of  them 
are,  but  clear  and  remarkably  reverent,  especially  so  in 
prayer.  I  do  not  now  remember  having  heard  any  white 
Christian  who  impressed  me  as  he  did  in  prayer.  It 
seemed  as  if  God  was  standing  by  his  side,  and  he  in 
reverential  attitude  before  the  Almighty !  A  gentleman 
skeptic  was  present  on  one  occasion  when  Sam  led  in 
prayer,  and  remarked  that  it  was  "wonderful  and  un- 
usual !"  His  was  one  of  the  most  convincing  facts  of 
the  supernaturalism  of  Christianity  that  I  have  witnessed. 
This  Indian's  piety  and  spirituality  were  so  unique  that 
certain  white  people,  and  especially  the  "family  he  had 
lived  with,  undertook  to  have  him  arrested  and  brought 
before  the  court  to  prove  him  insane  and  taken  to  the 
asylum.  They  caught  him  and  tied  him  with  ropes,  and 
hauled  him  many  miles  in  an  open  wagon  in  the  hot  sun 
to  the  county  seat.  He  pleaded  with  them  to  release  him, 
and  told  them  he  was  not  insane,  and  said  that  there  was 
a  time  when  he  would  have  fought  them ;  but  now  that  he 
was  a  Christian  he  could  not  fight.    The  court  did  not 


REMOVAL  TO  WASHINGTON,  39 

on  examination  find  him  insane,  and  released  him.  He 
prayed  for  their  forgiveness,  showing  the  Christlike  spirit, 
a  marvel  of  grace !  The  work  at  the  Hoopa  Reservation 
was  not  as  prosperous  as  at  the  Round  Valley,  and,  as  I 
think,  not  as  fortunately  manned. 

Removal  to  Washington  Territory. 

My  time  on  the  Petaluma  District  having  closed  by 
limitation  of  Church  law,  I  was  assigned  by  the  Confer- 
ence to  Second  Church,  Oakland,  California.  The  change 
from  outdoor  life  to  station  work  did  not,  as  I  had  feared, 
prove  favorable  to  my  health.  During  the  year  I  had  a 
slight  hemorrhage  of  the  lungs.  My  people  becoming 
somewhat  concerned  about  me,  gave  me  a  vacation  of  six 
weeks.  My  older  son  being  in  Portland,  Oregon,  desired 
me  to  accompany  him  to  Washington  Territory.  This  I 
did,  and  returned  to  my  charge  greatly  improved  and 
resumed  my  labors.  Before  the  year  ended  I  had  a  re- 
lapse. While  in  Washington  Territory  I  had  been  urged 
to  accept  an  appointment  in  the  Columbia  River  Confer- 
ence, as  they  were  short  of  help  here  on  the  frontier,  and 
was  offered  the  first  charge  of  the  Conference  as  an  in- 
ducement, which  I  declined,  saying  if  I  ever  concluded  to 
change  it  would  be  with  the  understanding  that  my  ap- 
pointment, however  small,  would  be  acceptable  and  wil- 
lingly received.  On  these  conditions,  and  with  the  hope 
of  improved  health,  I  finally  decided  to  come. 

It  will  be  twenty-five  years,  September,  1904,  since  my 
arrival.  Colfax  was  my  first  appointment.  It  had  a  pop- 
ulation of  about  two  hundred  people.  There  were  seven 
members  in  the  town,  and  a  few  in  the  country.  There 
was  no  church  edifice.  There  was  a  parsonage,  which 
had  a  stove  or  two,  and  a  cupboard,  I  think.  The  winter 
coming  on  soon,  we  found  the  upper  story  quite  open 
about  the  eaves.  The  thermometer  registered  thirty  de- 
grees below  zero,  the  coldest  winter  in  twenty-four  years, 
I  think.  The  change  from  California  was  great,  not  only 
in  temperature,  but  in  house  accommodations  and  salary. 
But  this  was  compensated  for  by  the  cordiality  of  the  peo- 


40  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

pie  and  the  decided  improvement  of  my  health.  My  three 
years'  stay  in  Colfax  was  in  some  respects  the  most  pleas- 
ant and  profitable  of  my  ministry  of  fifty  years.  We  built 
a  church  and  greatly  improved  the  parsonage.  I  received 
the  subscriptions,  bought  the  lumber,  and  did  most  of  the 
outside  painting  myself.  The  membership  was  materially 
increased,  and  the  second  year  we  entertained  the  Annual 
Conference  of  some  sixty  ministers,  among  a  population 
of  not  over  four  hundred  people.  The  hospitality  was 
generous,  and  was  most  enjoyable  to  the  ministers  and 
their  hosts.  The  next  day,  after  adjournment,  the  little 
newspaper  of  the  place  got  off  a  most  amusing  cartoon  of 
the  notable  meeting  of  the  ministers.  Two  roosters  stuck 
their  heads  through  a  fence,  on  opposite  sides  of  a  promi- 
nent alley,  and  this  colloquy  took  place,  it  was  said: 

"And  are  we  yet  alive, 
And  see  each  other's  face?" 

None  enjoyed  this  more  than  "the  Cloth,"  for  they  had 
fared  sumptuously  during  their  stay  in  that  little  city  in 
the  Gorge. 

At  the  close  of  this  stay  at  Colfax  I  was  again  called 
to  the  Presiding  Eldership,  with  residence  at  L,ewiston, 
Idaho.  My  district  extended  from  the  village  of  Spokane 
Falls  to  Walla  Walla,  and  from  the  Big  Bend  of  the  Co- 
lumbia River  to  Mt.  Idaho,  sixty  miles  east  of  Lewiston. 
Railroads  were  unknown,  except  a  little  "Strap  Road" 
from  Walla  Walla  to  Wallula,  and  there  were  few  trav- 
eled roads  in  Eastern  Washington.  I  went  mostly  on 
horseback  or  in  a  buggy.  To  meet  all  the  appointments 
in  the  bounds  of  this  district  required  about  twelve  hun- 
dred miles  of  travel  every  three  months.  This  in  my  case 
continued  for  six  years,  greatly  to  the  benefit  of  my 
health.  Since  this  time  I  have  been  in  circuit,  station, 
and  school  work.  For  the  last  four  or  five  years  I  have 
had  a  superannuated  relation,  not  being  able  to  do  full  and 
effective  labor  in  station  work,  though  I  have  and  do  some 
work  in  destitute  places  now.  I  am  now  (1904)  "in  the 
sear  and  yellow  leaf,"  nearing  my  fourscore  years,  and 


REMOVAL  TO  WASHINGTON.  41 

fifty-fourth  since  I  preached  my  first  sermon.  I  thank 
God  with  all  my  heart  that  "He  counted  me  worthy  of  put- 
ting me  into  the  ministry." 

Both  of  the  Conferences  in  which  I  have  spent  my 
active  life  have  treated  me  generously.  I  had  the  honor 
of  representing  the  California  Conference  in  the  General 
Conference  once  and  twice  by  my  adopted  Conference,  and 
was  elected  alternate  delegate  to  the  Ecumenical  Confer- 
ence in  1891.  I  am  greatly  attached  to  the  ministers  I 
have  intimately  known  and  labored  with  in  the  California 
and  Columbia  River  Conferences.  My  work  has  been 
largely  done  when  these  Conferences  were  laying  the 
foundations  of  the  Church,  and  were  in  a  true  sense  pio- 
neers of  these  great  Western  States.  Twenty-seven  years 
in  California  and  twenty-five  in  Washington !  This  has 
been  a  great  privilege  and  a  great  opportunity. 

My  elder  son  John,  who  spent  a  few  days  with  me  at 
the  time  of  Mrs.  Turner's  recent  and  very  sudden  death, 
asked  this  strange  but  pertinent  question:  "Father,  if 
you  had  your  life  to  live  over  again,  would  you  adopt  the 
calling  of  the  Christian  ministry?" 

I  unhesitatingly  replied,  "I  certainly  would." 

"Well,  I  am  glad  to  hear  you  say  so." 

"My  son,  I  am  gratified  that  you  feel  so.  Not  that  I 
feel  that  I  have  realized  my  own  ideal,  but  with  all  its 
deficiencies  I  would  not  exchange  it  for  any  position  or 
calling  in  life  that  I  have  known." 

I  have  had  some  fears  at  times  that  some  of  my  chil- 
dren felt  that  the  Methodist  ministry  did  not  afford  the 
best  opportunity  to  properly  educate  and  train  a  family 
of  growing  boys  and  girls,  because  of  constant  change  of 
place;  but  upon  the  whole  our  children  will  compare 
favorably  with  the  best  citizenship  of  the  country  as  to 
culture  and  usefulness,  I  hope.  Now  when  the  time  comes, 
as  it  soon  will,  that  I  am  summoned  to  change  worlds, 
if  I  can  only  hear  the  welcome,  "Well  done !  Thou  hast 
been  faithful  in  a  few  things,  enter  into  the  joy  of  thy 
Lord,"  my  sum  of  happiness  will  be  complete ! 


42  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

Darwinism. 

Some  twelve  years  ago,  in  Spokane,  I  was  drawn  into 
a  lengthy  discussion  on  the  Darwinian  "Theory  of  the 
Origin  of  Man"  with  a  Unitarian  preacher  by  the  name 
of  Wheelock.     He  had  preached  a  sermon  in  which  he 
assailed  the  Mosaic  account,  and  not  satisfied  with  pre- 
senting it  to  his  own  congregation,  which  was  his  right, 
he  had  it  published  in  one  of  the  leading  papers  of  the 
city.    It  was  couched  in  such  extravagant  terms  as  to  re- 
flect seriously  on  the  orthodox  Churches.     I  ventured  to 
reply  to  it,  and  requested  him  to  give  his  authority  for 
some  of  his  statements  in  the  sermon.     This  reasonable 
request  he  shrewdly  evaded,  and  charged  the  orthodox 
preachers  of  feeding  the  people  on  "worm-eaten  and  effete 
mythology."     He  called  us  "mummied  keepers  of  mum- 
mies/' "human  moles  and  bats,  who  can  not  see  that  it  is 
dawn-time;"  that  we  are  "living  in  a  past  age,"  and  are 
"camping  with  Moses,"  and  with  Mr.  Jasper,  who  said, 
"The  sun  do  move."    These  charitable  (?)   insinuations 
are  specimens  from  what  is  claimed  to  be  "liberal  Chris- 
tianity."   After  three  or  four  letters  passing  between  us 
in  the  Spokesman-Review,  I  challenged  him  to  a  public 
discussion  of  the  Darwinian  theory,  which  he  declined  on 
the  pretext  that  his  health  would  not  justify  his  accept- 
ance of  the  challenge;  but  he  sent  to  Chicago  and  got  a 
prominent  infidel  by  the  name  of  Underwood  to  come  and 
answer  me.     I  attended  his  first  lecture.     Mr.  Wheelock 
sat  on  the  platform  with  him,  and  the  lecturer  said  pub- 
licly "that  he  had  not  come  here  to  answer  Mr.  Turner." 
I  think  Mr.  Wheelock  felt  greatly  disappointed,  as  did 
some  others. 

As  a  final  result  of  the  correspondence  between  Mr. 
Wheelock  and  myself  through  the  Spokesman-Review,  and 
his  declining  my  challenge,  I  was  requested  by  the  Young 
Men's  Christian  Association  of  this  city  to  deliver  a  course 
of  lectures  on  Evolution  as  taught  by  Charles  Darwin 
and  others.  These  lectures  created  considerable  interest 
at  the  time,  but  are  of  such  a  philosophical  character  as 


DARWINISM.  43 

probably  not  to  interest  general  readers  now.     I  may, 
however,  publish  them  in  the  Appendix. 

"The  survival  of  the  fittest"  is  especially  untrue  in  the 
moral  world,  as  we  often  observe.  Lincoln,  Garfield,  and 
McKinley  did  not  survive  the  wretches  that  murdered 
them.  The  most  delicate  and  purest  of  the  race  are  often 
shortlived.  But  truth  and  purity  will  ultimately  triumph 
over  robust  sin  and  corruption;  but  Bible  righteousness 
is  the  only  evolution  that  can  ultimately  survive  the  rav- 
ages and  lapses  of  sin  in  our  world.  I  can  not  believe 
that  our  Infinite  and  loving  Father  can  take  pleasure  in 
the  strong  oppressing  the  weak  and  innocent.  This  is  a 
horrible  reflection  on  Divine  goodness.  My  God  when  He 
created  man  pronounced  the  work  "very  good."  There 
was  nothing  to  harm  in  the  Eden  state.  After  the  Fall 
this  state  was  reversed.  Under  the  scheme  of  redemption 
under  Christ,  the  prophetic  statement  is  made  that  "The 
wolf  also  shall  dwell  with  the  lamb,  and  the  leopard  shall 
lie  down  with  the  kid ;  and  the  calf  and  the  young  lion  and 
the  fatling  together,  and  a  little  child  shall  lead  them. 
And  the  cow  and  the  bear  shall  feed;  their  young  ones 
shall  lie  down  together;  and  the  lion  shall  eat  straw  like 
an  ox ;  and  the  sucking  child  shall  play  on  the  hole  of  the 
asp,  and  the  weaned  child  shall  put  his  hand  on  the  cock- 
atrice's den.  They  shall  not  hurt  nor  destroy  in  all  my  holy 
mountain."  (Isa.  xi,  6-9.)  This  is  Paradise  lost  and  Para- 
dise regained — lost  by  sin  and  regained  by  righteousness. 

At  the  time  of  these  lectures  I  felt  quite  confident  that 
the  Darwinian  theory  was  untenable,  and  in  time  would 
collapse.  The  revulsion  has  already  come,  and  I  believe 
it  is  doomed.  Eduard  Von  Hartmann,  the  veteran  phi- 
losopher of  Germany,  in  a  recently  published  article  headed 
"The  Passing  of  Darwinism,"  says :  "Among  the  latest 
opponents  of  Darwin's  views  are  such  savants  as  Eimer, 
Gustaf  Wolf,  De  Vries,  Hooke,  Von  Wellstein,  Fleisch- 
man,  Reinke,  and  others."  (Nat.  Philosophy,  Vol.  XI, 
1903.)  It  is  well  known  that  Hartman  is  not  prejudiced 
in  favor  of  the  Biblical  view,  and  this  gives  greater  sig- 
nificance and  weight  to  what  he  says. 


44  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

Other  scholars.  "I  emphasize  that  word  because  so 
much  stress  has  been  put  upon  it  by  recent  Darwinians. 
I  think  Hartmann  does  not  do  justice  to  the  reaction  that 
has  set  in  against  Darwin's  views."  Professor  Zoechler, 
of  the  University  of  Griefwald,  voices  this  sentiment.  He 
says  Hartmann's  article  is  the  tombstone  inscription  for 
Darwinism. 

The  most  pronounced  convert  to  anti-Darwin  views 
is  Professor  Fleischman,  of  Erlangen,  who  says  "The 
Darwinian  theory  of  descent  has  not  a  single  fact  to  con- 
firm it  in  the  realm  of  Nature." 

Rudolph  Virchow,  probably  the  greatest  scholar,  anat- 
omist, and  scientist  of  Europe,  just  before  his  recent  death 
pronounced  emphatically  against  the  theory  of  Charles 
Darwin.  So  we  see  that  the  reaction  has  come,  and  Moses 
and  the  Bible  are  in  the  ascendant. 

My  Associates  in  Christian  Work. 

This  biographical  sketch  of  my  life  would  not  be  faith- 
ful and  complete  without  speaking  of  the  men  I  have 
known,  and  who  have  greatly  influenced  me  for  good. 
Under  God,  I  owe  most  to  my  parents  for  what  I  have 
mentally,  physically,  and  morally  inherited  from  them. 
They  are  living  to-day  in  me  to  all  who  have  known  me 
and  have  been  influenced  by  me.  We  are  living  in  the 
past,  and  ihe  past  is  living  in  us,  as  certainly  as  heredity 
is  a  great  fact.  Thank  God  for  favorable  antecedents 
and  for  good  environments !  You  see  I  am  somewhat  of 
an  Evolutionist,  but  it  is  a  Theistic  evolution  I  believe  in. 

But  I  am  to  speak  of  the  men  who  have  greatly  im- 
pressed and  influenced  me.  I  call  to  mind  a  man  named 
Christian  Shoup,  my  first  class-leader.  He  made  a  deep 
impression  on  my  youthful  Church  life.  He  was  not  a 
man  of  much  education,  but  of  good  common  sense  and 
deep,  consistent  piety.  His  fatherly  interest  in  me  did 
much  to  modify  my  religious  character.  One  fact  in  his 
life  of  which  I  became  conversant,  was  his  family  re- 
ligion. Three  times  a  day  family  prayer  was  had  in  that 
home — morning,   noon,    and   night — as   regularly   as   the 


ASSOCIATES  IN  CHRISTIAN  WORK.        45 

day  came.  He  was  a  man  "diligent  in  business,  yet  fervent 
in  spirit,  serving  God."  He  was  eminently  fitted  for  a 
class-leader  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church;  one  of 
the  best,  if  not  the  best,  I  have  known  in  fifty  years.  In 
the  year  1869,  after  an  absence  of  seventeen  years  from 
my  native  place,  I  made  my  way  to  the  class-meeting,  and 
found  my  old  leader  still  in  office.  I  intensely  enjoyed  the 
hour.    It  is  a  sweet  memory  to  this  day. 

The  men  of  my  college  days,  who  most  impressed  me 
at  Ohio  Wesleyan  University,  were  Professor  Williams, 
teacher  of  Latin;  Professor  Merrick,  Professor  McCabe, 
and  President  Edward  Thomson.  Professor  Williams, 
modest,  gentlemanly,  and  painstaking,  I  am  not  surprised 
to  learn  that  he  distinguished  himself  in  his  later  life  as 
a  scholar.  Professor  Merrick  will  be  remembered  by  his 
beautiful  piety,  and  also  for  his  learning  and  culture.  He 
was  a  moral  force  in  the  university,  and  highly  respected 
by  most,  if  not  all  the  students.  Professor  McCabe  had 
charge  of  the  Mathematics  during  my  stay  there.  He 
held  the  students  to  strict  account  in  the  class-room.  No 
books  were  allowed  in  hand  while  at  the  blackboard.  In 
this  he  was  not  popular  with  lazy  students ;  but  he  was  a 
capital  teacher  and  made  thorough  scholars. 

President  Thomson  was  an  excellent  teacher  and  an 
accomplished  man.  Unpretentious  and  unaffected,  he  was 
modest,  and  in  my  view  approachable.  He  took  great  in- 
terest in  young  men  who  were  struggling  to  educate  them- 
selves, and  encouraged  them.  He  commanded  respect 
because  of  his  superior  knowledge,  as  well  as  by  his  trans- 
parent goodness.  While  I  remained  there  he  lectured 
nearly  every  Sabbath  afternoon  in  the  College  Hall,  which 
was  filled  with  students,  the  Faculty,  and  citizens  of  Dela- 
ware. And  such  lectures !  They  were  transcendent  as 
literary  productions,  and  packed  with  moral  and  religious 
truth.  He  was  also  an  able  and  interesting  preacher.  As 
I  remember  him,  he  was  at  times  quite  abstracted.  I 
heard  it  reported  of  him  that  at  a  certain  camp-meeting  in 
Ohio,  near  Mansfield,  he  and  his  wife  went  visiting  her 
parents  at  that  place.    Having  preached  on  Sabbath  on 


46  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

the  ground,  many  met  them.  While  he  was  shaking  hands 
with  one  and  another  whom  he  knew,  he  extended  his 
hand  to  a  lady  and  said,  "Sister,  I  ought  to  know  you,  but 
the  name  has  escaped  me."  It  proved  to  be  his  own  wife, 
to  the  amusement  of  some  who  witnessed  the  scene.  He 
possessed  remarkable  power  of  concentration  and  abstrac- 
tion. On  his  first  visit  to  California  as  bishop  I  had  him 
baptize  one  of  my  children.  His  opening  address  at  Con- 
ference was  the  finest  description  of  California,  its  climate 
and  productions,  that  I  have  ever  read.  He  had  been  in 
the  State  only  a  few  weeks,  and  told  us  more  than  we  had 
learned  in  years.  I  doubt  if  it  has  ever  been  equaled  in 
literary  excellence  or  in  keen  knowledge.  As  an  essayist 
he  has  not  been  excelled  by  Emerson  or  any  other  Amer- 
ican author. 

In  Asbury  University  the  teachers  who  impressed  me 
most  were  Professors  Wheeler,  Larrabee,  and  President 
Berry.  Professor  Wheeler  was  not  a  broad  scholar,  but 
a  hard  student  and  very  conscientious  and  correct  in  the 
branches  he  taught;  withal  a  true  Christian  gentleman. 
I  was  in  his  classes  four  years,  and  know  him  well.  He 
kept  in  touch  with  me  for  some  time  by  letter  in  California 
and  at  the  Sandwich  Islands.  He  finally  became  president 
of  Baldwin  University,  illustrating  what  pluck  and  in- 
dustry can  do  for  an  ordinary  man. 

Professor  Larrabee  was  a  fine  teacher  and  superior 
lecturer.  He  was  somewhat  eccentric,  but  a  lovable  man 
and  quite  popular  with  the  students. 

President  Lucian  Berry  was  not  what  might  be  called 
a  man  of  extensive  learning.  He  was  an  able  preacher, 
and  had  administrative  ability.  He  was  retiring  and  not 
very  approachable  with  students  generally;  but  when  he 
preached,  as  he  was  frequently  called  on  to  do  by  the  city 
pastors,  he  had  a  large  hearing.  He  had  spent  most  of 
his  public  life  in  the  Gospel  ministry,  and  was  at  home  in 
the  pulpit.  Compared  with  Matthew  Simpson,  who  pre- 
ceded him  as  president  of  Asbury  University,  he  of  course 
suffered  by  the  contrast,  as  did  many  of  Simpson's  suc- 
cessors in  this  institution.     One  thing  that  greatly  sur- 


ASSOCIATES  IN  CHRISTIAN  WORK.        47 

prised  me  in  President  Berry  was  this :  While  conducting 
the  revival  in  the  schoolhouse  where  I  preached  my  first 
sermon,  I  sent  word  to  him  to  come  and  relieve  me  and 
allow  me  to  return  to  my  studies  in  school.  He  replied 
that  saving  souls  at  that  particular  time  and  place  was 
more  important  than  wrestling  with  Latin  and  Greek 
verbs,  and  declined  to  come,  and  gave  as  his  reason  that 
if  he  came  he  would  kill  the  revival.  He  thought  no 
man  could  take  my  place  without  damage  to  the  meeting. 
I  did  not  understand  it  at  the  time ;  but  have  seen  enough 
in  my  da*y  to  convince  me  that  he  was  probably  correct, 
though  he  was  a  great  preacher  and  had  talent  as  an  evan- 
gelist. He  is  one  of  the  men  in  my  college  life  that  greatly 
impressed  me. 

Some  of  the  men  in  the  Gospel  ministry  whom  I  have 
known  intimately  greatly  influenced  my  life;  how  greatly 
I  may  never  fully  know  till  I  join  the  Church  triumphant. 
William  Taylor,  the  "California  Street  Preacher,"  lately 
known  as  Bishop  Taylor,  of  Africa,  I  knew  intimately 
in  his  early  career  in  San  Francisco  as  Bethel  and  street 
preacher.  He  was  remarkable  in  personal  appearance,  in 
voice,  in  song,  and  in  utterance.  He  was  eminently  an 
open-air  preacher.  He  possessed  tact,  generalship,  and 
administrative  ability.  His  popularity  with  saint  and  sin- 
ner was  unusual.  He  was  fearless  in  denouncing  sin  in 
high  and  low  places,  but  in  a  way  so  as  to  give  no  offense. 
No  preacher  in  San  Francisco  had  the  respect  that  Wil- 
liam Taylor  had  in  his  day.  If  a  gambler  died  and  his 
friends  wanted  him  to  have  a  Christian  burial,  they  called 
on  Taylor,  and  he  never  failed  to  warn  them  of  their  dan- 
gerous course  and  discouraged  the  life  they  were  leading. 
He  was  so  sincere  and  faithful  as  to  command  their  ad- 
miration and  confidence.  He  was  an  able  New  Testament 
preacher,  and  probably  more  widely  known  in  Europe, 
India,  Australia,  South  America,  and  Africa  than  any 
other  American  preacher. 

Dr.  Martin  C.  Briggs  was  one  of  the  pioneer  Meth- 
odist preachers  in  California,  and  a  man  of  note.  He  ex- 
celled as  a  platform  speaker  and  preacher  of  that  class. 


48  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

For  years  he  filled  the  first  appointments,  and  served  as 
Presiding  Elder  one  or  two  terms.  He  possessed  a  fine 
physique  and  pleasant  voice,  and  was  generally  popular. 
During  the  Rebellion  it  is  thought  he  did  more  than  any 
one  man  in  California  to  keep  the  State  from  going  with 
the  South.  The  people  of  Southern  proclivities  threat- 
ened to  mob  him  on  one  or  two  occasions.  He  was  fear- 
less and  able  in  his  defense  of  the  Government. 

Dr.  Edward  Bannister  was  among  the  second  contin- 
gency that  came  to  California  as  a  transfer  from  an  East- 
ern Conference.  He  was  a  valuable  accession  to  the  old 
California  Conference.  He  was  a  scholarly  man  and  an 
able  preacher.  My  connection  with  him  in  the  University 
of  the  Pacific  while  he  was  president  was  very  cordial 
and  congenial.  I  regarded  him  as  eminently  suited  to  that 
responsible  position.  After  I  left  the  Napa  Collegiate 
Institute  because  of  impaired  health,  and  entered  the  pas- 
toral work,  he  was  my  Presiding  Elder  for  two  years,  and 
I  never  had  an  abler  or  more  brotherly  one  than  he. 
I  think  he  surpassed  any  man  I  ever  knew  in  preaching 
to  a  small  congregation.  His  Saturday  sermons  were 
equal  to  any  that  he  gave  us  on  Sunday  mornings,  when 
he  had  a  large  hearing.  He  was  able  at  any  time,  and  at 
times  powerful.  He  was  a  close  student,  and  made  careful 
preparation  for  the  pulpit.  To  my  mind,  his  chief  relig- 
ious characteristic  was  conscientiousness.  He  came  of 
good  intellectual  and  Methodist  stock.  He  left  his  im- 
press on  California  Methodism. 

I  desire  to  speak  of  two  men  especially  of  the  Meth- 
odist ministers  who  impressed  me  more  than  others.  They 
were  Revs.  George  Clifford  and  Hiram  C.  Tallman. 
Neither  of  the  two  could  be  called  men  of  note  as  to  great 
preaching  ability  or  learning.  Clifford  was  eminently  a 
practical  man,  of  sound  common  sense,  and  good  natural 
ability.  He  was  affable,  earnest,  and  conscientious.  He 
was  in  demand  for  the  Presiding  Eldership,  for  which  in 
many  respects  he  was  eminently  fitted.  He  possessed  ad- 
ministrative ability,  and  was  popular  with  the  men  of  his 
district.    He  was  careful  and  impartial,  which  was  greatly 


'ASSOCIATES  IN  CHRISTIAN  WORK.        49 

in  his  favor.  I  think  he  was  in  district  work  longer  than 
any  man  of  the  Conference  in  the  last  forty  years.  He 
has  been  elected  General  Conference  delegate  three  or 
four  times.  There  is  no  question  in  my  mind  but  that  he 
is  the  real  father  of  the  Church  Extension  Society  in  the 
Methodist  Episcipal  Church,  that  is  doing  such  a  magnifi- 
cent work  in  the  world.  He  is  about  my  own  age,  and 
has  recently  retired  from  effective  work.  As  we  were  in- 
timate for  twenty-five  or  thirty  years,  he  greatly  impressed 
me  as  a  man  of  God. 

Hiram  C.  Tallman,  the  other  man,  had  a  limited  edu- 
cation, but  had  deep  piety  and  large  common  sense,  and 
knew  how  to  use  it.  He  was  a  born  evangelist.  He  could 
not  preach  much  according  to  the  accepted  standards,  but 
he  was  a  fine  exhorter  and  had  tact  and  generalship  in 
revival  work.  I  think  he  never  served  a  charge  without 
a  revival.  I  think  I  am  safe  in  saying,  in  the  years  that 
I  knew  him  (some  twenty-five)  he  had  more  conversions 
than  any  man  in  the  Conference,  and  more  than  any  six 
ministers  I  could  name  (but  will  not),  myself  among  the 
number.  He  was  about  forty  years  old  when  he  left  his 
farm  in  Napa  Valley  at  my  instance,  and  commenced  to 
preach.  Few  men  are  more  widely  known  and  loved 
than  H.  C.  Tallman.  I  use  the  word  loved  advisedly. 
"When  the  roll  is  called  up  yonder,"  I  expect  to  hear 
a  good  report  of  this  man,  so  unpretentious,  so  genial, 
so  popular  with  the  common  people,  "who  heard  him 
gladly !"  How  much  God  can  accomplish  through  a  con- 
secrated and  good  man  with  but  one  talent !  I  thank  God 
that  it  was  my  privilege  to  know  these  men  and  labor  with 
them ! 

John  B.  Hill  was  one  of  the  early  Methodist  preachers 
of  the  California  Conference.  He  was  slender  in  build, 
was  a  blonde  in  color,  nervous,  but  with  a  well-knit  frame 
of  marvelous  endurance.  He  was  an  admirable  Confer- 
ence Secretary,  which  position  he  held  for  many  years. 
He  also  was  Book  Agent  in  San  Francisco  for  several 
years.  His  business  qualifications  were  of  a  high  order, 
and  his  reputation  for  honesty  and  integrity  unimpeach- 
4 


50  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

able.  He  was  a  good  preacher,  not  eloquent,  but  prac- 
tical and  evangelical.  I  am  not  certain,  but  think  he  filled 
one  term  in  the  Presiding  Eldership.  I  followed  him  in 
the  Downieville  charge.  Two  incidents  occurred  during 
his  pastorate  worthy  of  note.  He  preached  three  times 
every  Sabbath;  twice  at  Downieville  and  once  at  Forest 
City,  seven  miles  away.  After  the  morning  service  he 
took  a  hasty  lunch,  and  went  to  a  livery  stable  one  Sab- 
bath when  he  feared  he  had  not  time  to  reach  his  appoint- 
ment in  time  on  foot,  and  hired  a  mule  that  was  regarded 
as  a  good  traveler  and  mountain  climber.  When  he  was 
about  half  way  up  a  seven-mile  mountain  he  drew  his 
watch  and  found  that  he  was  sure  to  be  late.  He  alighted 
from  his  mule  and  turned  his  head  homeward,  and  lighted 
out  on  foot,  and  all  aglow  landed  on  the  church  platform 
just  in  the  nick  of  time.  At  another  time  and  place  he 
was  building  a  church,  and  the  masons  discovered  that 
they  were  about  to  run  short  of  lime  and  none  was  obtain- 
able in  the  place,  and  found  there  was  none  to  be  had 
nearer  than  Marysville,  fifty  miles  away.  The  stage  was 
supposed  to  make  the  distance  some  time  during  the  day; 
but  the  case  seemed  so  urgent  that  he  started  on  foot  and 
beat  the  stage.  He  would  have,  in  my  judgment,  surpassed 
the  celebrated  footman,  Weston,  had  he  given  himself  to 
the  profession,  but  he  chose  a  higher  calling.  He  once 
said,  "I  preach  with  my  legs."  Yes,  he  did.  He  was 
altogether  an  unusual  and  remarkable  personage.  He  has 
finished  his  course,  and  is  crowned  with  an  imperishable 
coronet. 

John  W.  Ross  was  among  the  early  men  of  the  Cali- 
fornia Conference.  He  was  about  six  feet  one  inch  in 
height,  well  formed,  black  hair,  a  fine  face,  and  a  courtly 
gentleman  of  unaffected  demeanor ;  a  fine  preacher  and  an 
imperial  Presiding  Elder.  As  I  knew  him  he  appeared  to 
be  an  unusually  well-balanced  man.  He  if  alive  is  on 
the  retired  list,  full  of  years,  and  ripe  for  translation  when 
the  Master  speaks  the  "Well  done !     Come  up  higher." 

Others  there  are,  and  many  in  my  old  Conference,  but 
I  can  not  individualize  them  in  this  brief  history.    I  will 


ASSOCIATES  IN  CHRISTIAN  WORK.         51 

call  the  roll,  but  most  of  them  will  not  answer  here: 
Isaac  Owens,  Adam  Bland,  John  R.  Tansy,  John  D.  Blain, 
R.  B.  Stratton,  John  Daniels,  Elijah  Merchant,  Alfred 
Higbie,  C.  V.  Anthony,  Eleazar  Thomas,  W.  S.  Urmy, 
W.  T.  Mayne,  Thomas  S.  Dunn,  H.  B.  Heacock,  and  Wes- 
ley Dennett,  and  others  well  beloved,  who  have  made  their 
impression  on  my  life.  God  bless  the  surviving  veterans ! 
The  departed  ones  are  more  richly  blessed,  "and  their 
works  do  follow  them." 

In  the  Columbia  River  Conference,  I  feel  I  must  speak 
of  some  men  who  have  greatly  impressed  and  helped  me. 
And  first  I  would  mention  Milton  S.  Anderson.  He  is 
now  the  oldest  living  probationer,  or  rather  the  oldest 
probationer  of  this  Conference,  and  the  first  whose  ac- 
quaintance I  made  twenty-five  years  ago  this  month 
(May).  His  first  circuit  was  nearly  as  large  as  the  Walla 
Walla  and  Spokane  Districts  combined.  He  has  witnessed 
the  infancy  and  growth  of  the  Columbia  River  Conference, 
and  had  been  no  small  factor  in  its  development.  His 
administrative  ability  is  of  the  first  order.  It  is  no  dis- 
paragement to  any  member  of  this  Conference  to  say  that 
he  is  the  ablest  debater  in  the  body,  for  there  are  a  num- 
ber of  men  able  in  this  regard,  and  they  all  can  not  be 
"primus,"  or  first.  He  was  always  a  faithful  and  success- 
ful Presiding  Elder  and  sound,  practical  preacher.  He 
deserves  well  of  the  body  for  his  long  and  faithful  service. 

William  J.  White,  now  commonly  called  Father  White, 
is  a  man  that  has  greatly  impressed  me  for  his  qualities 
of  head  and  heart.  No  man  in  this  Conference  is  more 
noted  than  this  remarkable  personage.  He  is  the  John 
the  Baptist  of  the  body.  Modest,  retiring,  and  fearless  in 
the  expression  of  his  convictions,  he  is  the  pink  of  con- 
scientiousness, faultless  in  behavior,  and  absolutely  con- 
sistent in  living  up  to  his  convictions,  and  an  able  preacher 
in  his  peculiar  vein  and  mold.  To  those  who  do  not  know 
him  intimately  he  may  appear  distant  and  unsocial;  but 
he  is  a  most  genial  and  lovable  person  when  you  know 
him  as  he  is.  I  first  saw  him  over  thirty  years  ago  in 
California,  at  a  camp-meeting  in  Napa  Valley.    He  seemed 


52  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

a  stranger  to  every  one  on  the  ground.  The  meeting  had 
lasted  over  two  weeks.  Eminent  preachers  had  been  pres- 
ent from  San  Francisco  and  other  parts  of  the  State;  but 
there  was  no  movement  of  power  in  the  meeting.  On  the 
second  Sabbath  in  the  afternoon  this  man  White  had  been 
invited  to  preach,  only  because  no  one  else  could  be  in- 
duced to  fill  the  hour.  I  remember  well  the  text,  "I  be- 
seech you  therefore,  brethren,  by  the  mercies  of  God,"  etc. 
And  what  a  sermon !  I  doubt  if  John  the  Baptist  ever 
preached  a  more  searching  one.  After  the  sermon  he  re- 
tired to  the  woods.  The  inquiry  over  all  the  encampment 
was,  "Who  is  the  man  who  preached  that  sermon?"  No 
one  seemed  to  know  who  he  was  or  where  he  came  from. 
I  made  his  acquaintance  the  next  day,  and  learned  some- 
thing of  his  history.  Ever  since  I  have  known  him  inti- 
mately, and  have  been  his  Presiding  Elder  in  California 
and  in  this  Conference.  There  is  no  man  in  this  body  I 
esteem  more  highly.  It  is  worth  while  to  know  this 
unique  man  and  minister  of  Jesus,  as  I  and  most  of  you 
have  known  him. 

One  other  member  of  the  Columbia  River  Conference, 
who  has  very  recently  been  translated,  it  gives  me  a  great 
pleasure  to  mention,  is  John  Uren.  He  came  into  this 
Conference  shortly  after  my  transfer  from  California. 
He  was  an  impressive  man  in  two  or  three  respects.  He 
was  an  imperial  preacher  from  a  Scriptural  standpoint. 
Animated,  Biblical,  packed  with  pertinent  Scriptures,  well 
arranged,  convincing,  soul-stirring,  and  highly  spiritual — 
in  a  word,  a  master  in  his  peculiar  line.  A  Christian  gen- 
tleman without  affectation,  and  beautifully  modest.  What 
impressed  me  most  in  his  life  was  his  bearing  towards 
his  invalid  wife,  who  for  more  than  twenty  years  was  as 
helpless  as  a  child.  This  woman  was  his  constant  daily 
care.  He  had  to  undress  and  care  for  her  much  of  these 
years,  as  if  she  had  been  an  infant.  The  wonder  was, 
how  he  could  preach  and  serve  the  charges  all  these  years 
with  such  exceptional  acceptability !  He  was  always  in 
demand  among  the  best  charges  in  this  Conference.  His 
departure  from  us  was  sudden  and  unlooked  for,  as  he 


'ASSOCIATES  IN  CHRISTIAN  WORK.        S3 

was  in  robust  health  and  in  his  prime.  Blessed  man !  I 
loved  him  as  a  brother  and  man  of  God. 

I  met  Samuel  G.  Havermale  for  an  hour  or  two  on  my 
first  visit  to  Washington,  while  he  was  preaching  at  Day- 
ton. I  was  delighted  with  this  genial  minister.  Soon 
after  this  he  superannuated,  and  I  have  known  him  in  this 
relation  for  a  number  of  years.  He  was  regarded  as  an 
eloquent  and  able  preacher  while  in  the  effective  work. 
He  passed  away  recently  peacefully  and  full  of  years. 

James  H.  Wilbur,  better  known  as  Father  Wilbur, 
came  to  Oregon  some  time  in  the  forties.  He  was  tall, 
well  proportioned,  weighing  about  two  hundred  pounds 
without  obesity,  muscular,  a  giant  in  strength.  A  Meth- 
odist preacher  of  the  old  school,  a  loyal  Methodist,  an  ex- 
cellent Presiding  Elder,  a  superior  Indian  agent  under 
President  Grant's  Administration,  and  a  munificent  giver 
for  a  man  of  his  wealth.  His  record  is  on  high,  and  "his 
works  do  follow  him."  Wilbur  Academy  in  Oregon  and 
Wilbur  Chapel  in  Walla  Walla,  Washington,  are  monu- 
ments of  his  gifts  and  memorials  of  the  man. 

Dr.  Harvey  K.  Hines  came  to  Oregon  in  the  year  1852, 
He  was  transferred  from  one  of  the  New  York  Confer- 
ences. He  had  spent  his  ministerial  life  principally  in  the 
Oregon  and  Columbia  River  Conferences.  He  was  a  man 
of  medium  stature,  fine  personality,  a  perennial  Presiding 
Elder,  a  fine  preacher,  and  able  writer  and  author  of  some 
note.  He  was  for  some  years  editor  of  the  Pacific  Chris- 
tian Advocate.  His  history  of  early  Methodism  in  Oregon 
is  of  a  high  order.    He  was  a  genial  personality  among  us. 

Theodore  Hoagland  is  one  of  the  oldest,  if  not  the 
oldest,  living  members  of  the  body.  He  is  an  able 
preacher,  and  something  of  a  poet.  He  has  also  ability  as 
a  writer,  but  is  greatly  handicapped  by  extreme  deafness 
and  defective  eyesight.  His  deafness  was  caused  in  the 
War  of  the  Rebellion  by  heavy  cannonading.  He  is  a 
superannuate  of  some  eight  or  ten  years  in  consequence 
of  these  disabilities.  He  has  to  use  a  powerful  ear  trumpet 
when  in  Conference,  and  runs  around  to  each  speaker 
often  to  the  amusement  of  lookers-on;  but  no  man  can 


54  STORY  OF  MY  LIFB. 

give  a  better  account  of  the  status  of  the  business  of  the 
body  than  he,  or  speak  more  effectively  on  any  important 
question  under  discussion.  He  is  a  brother  beloved  and  of 
good  repute. 

Henry  Brown,  D.  D.,  is  one  of  the  oldest  men  of  the 
Conference,  and  has  been  prominent  in  her  councils,  hav- 
ing represented  her  once  in  the  General  Conference.  He 
has  been  a  defender  of  the  polity  of  our  Church  on  the 
amusement  question,  and  has  published  a  creditable  book 
on  the  subject  recently.  His  first  term  in  the  Presiding 
Eldership  has  just  expired.  Dr.  Brown  wields  a  facile 
pen.  His  personality  in  looks  and  manners  is  attractive 
and  unique.  He  has  a  fund  of  humorous  anecdotes,  some 
of  them  side-splitting,  and  he  uses  them  rather  lavishly. 
He  has  some  ability  as  a  cartoonist,  and  as  has  been  inti- 
mated of  some  others  of  us,  may  have  missed  his  calling. 
This  can  be  said  to  his  great  credit,  however,  he  is  an 
inveterate  anti-saloon  man,  and  would  make  a  creditable 
prohibition  candidate  for  governor  of  some  State. 

William  B.  Carithers,  among  the  oldest  men  of  our 
body,  has  recently  been  translated.  He  came  to  this  Con- 
ference in  1884  from  the  Illinois  Conference.  He  took  a 
superannuated  relation  about  ten  years  ago,  but  has  been 
in  constant  attendance  at  our  sessions  until  the  last,  and 
always  took  an  active  part  in  its  business.  We  greatly 
miss  him,  so  kind  and  gentle.  His  name  is  like  "ointment 
poured  forth." 

John  Le  Cornu.  This  brother  is  of  French  descent. 
He  is  stockily  and  compactly  built;  has  black,  kinky  hair, 
and  is  about  five  feet  eight  inches  high,  aged  about  sixty, 
and  of  robust  health.  He  has  a  good  voice,  with  a  maga- 
zine of  enthusiasm,  and  is  a  superabounding  Methodist. 
He  is  a  No.  1  leader  of  a  prayer-meeting  or  love-feast, 
and  a  good  pastor.  I  do  not  remember  that  he  ever  made 
a  five-minute  speech  on  the  Conference  floor  on  any  issue 
before  the  body,  but  he  is  tactful  in  interjecting  remarks 
on  anything  that  pleases  him,  either  by  the  brethren  or 
bishop,  without  making  himself  offensive  or  impertinent. 
As  I  once  heard  a  minister  of  a  Congregational  Church 


'ASSOCIATES  IN  CHRISTIAN  WORK.        55 

call  a  brother  minister  "a  Methodist  stove/'  so  I  might 
say  this  brother  is  the  Methodist  stove  of  the  Columbia 
River  Conference.  He  is  a  good  committeeman,  and  is 
in  goood  repute.  He  ought  to  be  effective  till  he  is 
eighty. 

David  E.  George,  one  of  the  older  members  of  this 
body,  is  an  eccentric  character.  He  is  somewhat  tall,  and 
has  a  head  of  Websterian  dimension.  God  made  but  one 
David  E.  George,  and  will  probably  never  repeat  Himself. 
He  lays  no  claim  to  preaching  ability.  He  has  some  gift 
as  a  revivalist,  and  quite  a  little  tact.  He  is  eccentric, 
some  may  think  to  a  fault.  He  is  utterly  unconscious  of 
it  until  after  it  has  created  a  laugh.  He  is  unaffected  and 
simple  as  a  child.  You  can  never  tell  when  nor  where 
nor  how  it  will  manifest  itself,  so  effervescent  is  he,  and 
so  versatile.  His  wife,  who  has  lived  with  him  about 
thirty  years,  once  said  to  him,  "David,  will  I  ever  know 
you?"  I  doubt  if  there  ever  was  a  Methodist  bishop  who 
presided  at  the  Columbia  River  Conference  that  did  not 
have  his  gravity  well-nigh  upset  by  this  eccentric  brother. 
He  is  now  on  the  retired  list,  and  keeps  sweet  and  happy. 

Among  the  other  pioneers  of  this  Conference  that  it 
has  been  my  privilege  to  know  intimately  were  D.  G. 
Strong,  J.  C.  Kirkman,  William  Koonts,  N.  E.  Parsons, 
Abraham  Eads,  and  T.  A.  Towner.  The  younger  men 
who  are  full  of  promise  I  know,  and  am  proud  of  them 
and  expect  great  things  of  them.  Columbia  River  Con- 
ference is  vigorous  and  progressive,  and  I  rejoice  that 
I  have  had  the  privilege  of  fellowship  in  labor  and  toil 
with  them  in  the  Gospel  of  Christ  in  this  interesting 
field. 

Two  laymen  in  Washington  who  have  greatly  im- 
pressed me  are  Father  Waltz  and  Andrew  J.  Loomis. 

Father  Waltz  was  a  man  of  medium  size,  black  hair, 
mild  countenance,  modest,  an  intelligent  Christian,  com- 
panionable, and  of  generous  hospitality.  His  was  one  of 
the  beautiful  homes  where  I  was  often  entertained  during 
my  Presiding  Eldership.  This  was  a  model  Christian 
home,  the  fruits  of  which  are  seen  in  the  outcome  of  the 


56  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

children.  Two  Methodist  preachers  and  two  or  three 
daughters,  beautiful  Christian  women,  are  to-day  blessing 
the  world  by  their  talents  and  Godly  example.  His  name 
is  redolent  with  a  beautiful  piety. 

Andrew  J.  Loomis  is  a  man  of  six  feet  and  about  two 
inches;  raw  boned,  sandy  complexion,  sanguine  tempera- 
ment, not  good  looking,  as  the  phrase  is,  but  goodness 
personified,  which  is  far  better;  not  unlike  Andrew  in 
the  Gospel,  and  like  Jeremiah,  tender  to  tears  and  a  most 
companionable  man.  His  godliness  never  sours,  but  is 
sweet  and  persuasive ;  a  most  approachable  man,  and  gen- 
erous to  a  fault.  Twenty-five  years  ago  when  we  landed 
in  Colfax,  Washington,  and  had  just  moved  into  an  open 
parsonage  with  scant  furniture,  and  the  rains  were  copi- 
ous, and  we  had  no  wood  except  some  green  slabs  just 
sawed,  a  tall,  ungainly  man  came  to  the  door,  and  asked 
if  the  preacher  lived  there.  Being  answered  in  the  affirm- 
ative, he  said  his  name  was  "Loomis,"  and  remarked  that 
it  occurred  to  him  that  we  might  need  some  wood  and 
flour.  We  certainly  did,  and  he  had  come  some  five  miles 
with  dry  wood  and  provisions.  They  were  timely.  That 
man  was  photographed  on  my  mind  and  heart,  and  to  me 
he  is  one  of  the  best-looking  men  I  have  ever  known.  I 
have  known  him  intimately  all  these  years,  and  he  has 
grown  on  me,  and  I  love  him  more  than  a  natural  brother. 
I  know  a  large  number  of  people  who  agree  with  the  esti- 
mate I  now  place  on  him  as  a  man  and  Christian.  I  said 
he  is  a  layman.  He  is  also  a  lay  preacher.  I  shall  know 
him  when  the  "roll  is  called  up  yonder." 

I  have  it  in  my  heart  to  mention  many  other  precious 
names;  but  my  limits  in  this  book  will  not  permit. 

In  the  last  sixty-four  years  I  have  seen  and  heard  the 
following  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church: 
Waugh,  Morris,  Baker,  Scott,  Kingsiey,  Simpson,  Clark, 
Hamline,  Ames,  Janes,  Merrill,  Wiley,  Gilbert  Haven, 
Thomson,  Foster,  Bowman,  Peck,  FitzGerald,  Andrews, 
Warren,  Foss,  Hurst,  Fowler,  Ninde,  Mallalieu,  Vincent, 
Cranston,  Goodsell,  and  Joyce,  and  the  following  Mission- 
ary Bishops:  William  Taylor,  Thoburn,  and  Hartzell.    I 


FINIS.  57 

have  felt  their  impress,  and  thank  God  for  the  privilege. 
Such  a  life  causes  one  to  be  a  composite,  in  a  sense,  of  all 
he  has  seen  and  felt. 

The  Books  that  have  Influenced  and  Impressed  Me. 

These  have  been  mostly  biographical  and  religious. 
Hester  Ann  Rogers,  Carvosso,  Wesley,  Madam  Guyon, 
John  Fletcher,  Bishop  Taylor's  "Story  of  My  Life," 
Bishop  Simpson,  Frances  Willard,  and  others.  But  the 
Bible  is  the  supreme  Book  of  my  life.  The  Bible  char- 
acters who  have  impressed  me  most  deeply  are  Abraham, 
Moses,  Joseph  in  Egypt,  Daniel  in  Babylon,  Elijah,  Isaiah, 
Peter,  James,  John,  and  Paul.  I  think  I  can  say,  without 
extravagant  exaggeration,  that  I  have  known  these  per- 
sons better  than  many  living  men  whom  I  have  known 
personally.  But  more  than  all  these  I  have  known  Jesus 
Christ,  the  chief  among  ten  thousand,  and  the  "altogether 
lovely,"  the  only  faultless  character  of  our  race !  He 
stands  out  the  transcendent  God-man,  peerless  and  unique, 
without  a  stain  on  His  beautiful  life  and  character !  It 
is  not  idolatry  to  worship  Him  and  an  unblushing  sin 
not  to  worship  Him,  who  is,  as  Paul  puts  it,  "The  express 
image  of  the  Father's  person,"  "the  only  begotten  of  the 
Father  and  well-beloved  Son."  "Let  all  the  angels  wor- 
ship Him,"  says  St.  Paul,  setting  at  rest  forever  His 
Divinity.  All  this  I  sincerely  and  firmly  believe,  and  can 
not  be  satisfied  with  a  lesser  creed.  I  expect  not  long 
hence  to  awaken  in  His  likeness,  and  see  Him  as  Peter, 
James,  and  John  beheld  Him  on  the  Mount  of  Transfigu- 
ration, or  as  on  the  Mount  of  Ascension  when  He  was 
parted  from  His  entranced  disciples. 

Finis. 

A  closing  word  to  the  great  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  as  to  her  duty  towards  her  superannuates.  I 
began  to  support  myself  at  the  age  of  twelve,  and  now 
in  my  seventy-ninth  year  I  am  preserving  the  habit  of 
self-support  by  keeping  books  and  collecting  for  a  black- 


58  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

smith  firm  to  supplement  what  I  receive  from  the  Super- 
annuate Fund.  I  may,  as  bodily  strength  decreases,  be 
compelled  to  do  lighter  work;  but  still  I  hope  to  work 
at  something.  This  does  not  offend  my  pride,  for  I  have 
never  been  ashamed  of  anything  but  sin  since  my  conver- 
sion. But  I  say  this  in  behalf  of  my  fellow  superannuates 
who  are  more  feeble  and  dependent  than  myself,  that  the 
Church  may  be  stirred  to  its  obligations  to  the  men  and 
women  who  have  worn  themselves  out  in  her  service,  and 
as  a  consequence  are  left  in  this  delicate  plight.  We  are 
called  "claimants"  in  the  Discipline,  and  the  claim  is 
righteous  if  any  claim  is. 

A  last  word  to  the  many  noble  laymen  and  lay  women 
I  have  known  in  the  half-century  recently  ended.  While 
in  the  choice  I  made  in  the  year  1850  to  be  a  Methodist 
preacher,  and  in  so  doing  gave  up  all  hope  of  a  settled 
home  of  my  own,  I  have  had,  without  exaggeration,  more 
than  a  thousand  homes  open  and  free  to  me,  as  if  they 
had  been  my  own,  and  many  of  them  better  and  more 
costly  than  I  could  have  hoped  for  of  my  own  making. 
A  hospitality  genuine  and  as  sincere  as  the  sunlight  and 
as  free  as  God's  pure  air  and  water.  And  in  many  of  the 
humble  log  cabins  I  had  a  royal  welcome  that  I  prized 
more  than  I  can  express.  I  pray  God  to  bless  the  Meth- 
odist laity,  and  help  them  not  to  forget  the  hospitality  of 
early  Methodism  in  America,  for  this  is  doubtless  an 
eminent  virtue  of  the  Christian  religion. 

As  I  have  been  giving  this  biographical  sketch  of  my 
life  I  have  felt  the  difficulty  of  avoiding  undue  person- 
ality, which  is  distasteful  to  true  modesty.  But  a  personal 
life  involves  more  or  less  of  the  egotist.  Herbert  Spencer 
in  his  recent  autobiography  felt  this  difficulty,  and  I  think 
was  criticised  because  of  it.  A  truthful  and  honest  biog- 
raphy is  not  possible  without  it;  but  it  ought  to  be  re- 
duced to  a  minimum.  George  Francis  Train  allowed  his 
egotism  to  go  to  seed  until  it  degenerated  into  a  huge 
disgust.  Some  people  wonder  in  reading  some  autobiog- 
raphies whether  the  writer  was  ever  conscious  of  any 
faults  or  blunders  in  his  own  life.     To  be  strictly,  nay 


MRS.  SUSAN  BEBCHBR  TURNER.  59 

severely,  honest  and  truthful  most  of  us  will  have  to  plead 
guilty.  I  have  to.  Whether  to  detail  our  faults  and  blun- 
ders in  a  strict  biography  is  in  good  taste  is  quite  ques- 
tionable; but  an  admission  that  our  lives  are  far  from 
faultless,  even  since  we  became  Christians,  may  be  an 
honorable  and  just  confession  and  the  truth.  If  we  have 
confessed  our  faults  and  blunders,  and  have  corrected 
them  as  far  as  in  us  lies,  God  is  faithful  and  just  to  for- 
give and  own  us  as  His  children. 


MRS.  SUSAN  BEECHER  TURNER. 

A    MEMORIAL    SKETCH. 

This  story  of  my  life  would  not  be  true,  complete,  nor  just,  without 
a  fuller  account  of  Mrs.  Turner's  influence  on  it,  of  which  she  was 
a  prominent  factor  and  part.    I  therefore  append  the  following: 

A  brief  sketch  of  the  life  of  Mrs.  Susan  Beecher 
Turner,  and  the  circumstances  surrounding  her  death,  may 
be  gleaned  from  the  obituary  notices  published  at  the  time. 
She  died  at  the  farm  home  in  the  Saltese  Lake  Neighbor- 
hood, near  Spokane,  May  18,  1900.  Her  death  resulted 
from  heart  failure,  following  a  slight  attack  of  illness. 
She  probably  passed  away  in  her  sleep,  having  lain  down 
to  rest  towards  the  close  of  the  day.  The  wheels  of  life 
simply  stopped,  and  death  came  without  pain,  peaceably 
and  ideally.  The  following  verses,  which  she  had  cut 
from  a  paper  and  attached  to  her  pin-cushion  on  the 
bureau  after  reading  them  that  day,  seem  almost  pro- 
phetic as  to  the  manner  of  her  death: 

"Some  afternoon,  with  all  my  duties  done, 

And  everything  in  order  set  for  one  more  day. 
Then  with  the  slow  declining  of  the  sun, 

I  would  lie  down  for  aye. 
Leave  all  my  work  for  other  hands 

To  take  up  and  complete, 
While  to  the  happy  morning  lands 

I  speed  my  tired  feet. 


60  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

The  path  will  not  be  long  that  I  shall  go, 
Nor  shall  I  linger  upon  the  upward  way ; 

For  warmest  welcome  waits  for  me,  I  know, 
And  joyful  endless  day. 

So  wait  I  for  some  summer  day- 
Some  sunny  afternoon — 

When  I  shall  lay  my  cares  away, 
My  earthly  journey  done. 

Whatever  may  befall  before  that  hour — 

Solemn,  supreme,  the  end  of  earthly  strife — 

O  Christ !    Thou  friend  of  boundless  love  and  power ; 
Grant  then  eternal  life. 

And  in  the  last  extremity  to  help  when  low  I  lie 
Be  angel  guards  my  company — Christ  near — 

So  let  me  die." 

Following  are  extracts  from  an  obituary  notice  pub- 
lished in  the  Spokane  Spokesman-Review : 

"Mrs.  Turner  had  lived  a  very  active  and  useful  life,  help- 
ing her  husband  greatly  in  his  educational  and  ministerial 
work.  They  came  to  the  Northwest  about  twenty-five  years 
ago,  and  lived  successively  in  Colfax,  Lewiston,  Idaho;  and 
Spokane ;  coming  to  this  city  in  1885.  Since  retiring  from  the 
active  work  of  the  ministry,  Mr.  Turner  and  wife  have  lived 
on  a  farm. 

"They  are  pioneers  of  the  Pacific  Coast,  having  lived  on 
the  Western  Divide  over  forty-eight  years.  They  were  married 
in  California  in  1856,  and  proceeded  to  the  Hawaiian  Islands 
as  missionaries.  Later  Mrs.  Turner  assisted  her  husband  as 
preceptress  of  Napa  Collegiate  Institute,  California,  of  which 
he  was  president.  She  was  well  fitted  for  this  work,  having 
graduated  from  the  State  Normal  School  at  Albany,  New 
York,  in  1849,  and  having  taught  much  before  and  after  that 
date.  She  also  had  traveled  considerably  with  her  husband  in 
his  work  as  Presiding  Elder  of  the  Columbia  River  Confer- 
ence, Spokane  and  Walla  Walla  Districts. 

"Mrs.  Turner  was  a  native  of  Massachusetts,  and  a  scion 
of  the  noted  Beecher  family.  She  leaves  four  children;  viz., 
Principal  William  B.  Turner,  of  the  State  Normal  School  at 
Cheney;  Misses  Annie  and  Ruth  Turner,  well-known  in 
musical  and  art  circles  of  this  city;  and  a  stepson,  Hon.  John 


MRS.  SUSAN  BBBCHBR  TURNER.  61 

C.  Turner,  of  Colfax,  a  member  of  Washington's  first  House 
of  Representatives,  and  formerly  Auditor  of  Whitman  County. 
She  also  leaves  a  sister,  Mrs.  Mary  E.  Potter,  of  Keuterville, 
Idaho." 

Following  are  extracts  from  a  memorial  sketch  writ- 
ten by  the  officiating  clergyman,  W.  K.  Beans,  D.  D.,  then 
pastor  of  the  Vincent  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  of 
Spokane,  and  published  in  the  Minutes  of  the  Columbia 
River  Conference: 

"Into  one  of  the  branches  of  the  Beecher  family,  in  Sandis- 
field,  Berkshire  County,  Mass.,  on  May  9,  1821,  a  little  girl 
came  to  gladden  and  brighten  the  home.  The  welcome  mes- 
senger was  christened  Susan  Eliza.  Under  excellent  religious 
and  educational  advantages  she  grew  to  womanhood.  At  the 
age  of  twenty-three  she  was  converted.  Six  years  later,  in 
1850,  she  united  with  the  Methodist  Church.  In  1856  she  was 
married  to  William  S.  Turner.  She  graduated  from  the  State 
Normal  School  at  Albany,  N.  Y.,  in  1849,  having  taught  several 
years  before  that  date.  Immediately  following  their  marriage 
in  1856  they  went  as  missionaries  to  the  Sandwich  Islands. 
On  their  return  to  California  she  was  preceptress  in  the  Napa 
Collegiate  Institute,  of  which  her  husband  was  principal  for 
six  years.  She  came  to  this  Conference  twenty-one  years  ago 
to  share  in  the  toils  and  joys  of  the  itinerancy. 

"Her  passing  away  was  simply  a  falling  asleep.  Not  seri- 
ously indisposed  she  lay  down  to  rest,  and  after  a  while  it 
was  discovered  that  she  had  passed  into  the  dreamless  slum- 
ber— a  quiet,  painless,  peaceful  entry  into  the  splendors  of  the 
Heavenly  Mansion. 

"Her  children"  (two  grown  to  man's  estate  and  two  in 
the  flush  of  womanhood)  "rise  up  and  call  her  blessed;  her 
husband  also,  and  he  praiseth  her." 

"A  large  gathering  of  friends  and  neighbors  assembled 
at  the  home  near  Saltese  Lake  for  the  funeral  service  on  Sab- 
bath afternoon,  May  19th.  The  writer  preached  the  funeral 
sermon  from  Rev.  xxi,  4:  'And  God  shall  wipe  away  all  tears 
from  their  eyes,  and  there  shall  be  no  more  death,  neither  sor- 
row nor  crying,  neither  shall  there  be  any  more  pain,  for  the 
former  things  have  passed  away.' 

"Her  Sunday-school  class  was  present,  bearing  testimony 


62  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

to  the  loss  of  a  faithful  and  loving  teacher.     Embowered  in 
the  sweet  blossoms  of  spring, 

"  'Emblems  of  our  own  great  resurrection, 
Emblems  of  the  bright  and  better  land/ 

she  peacefully  lay;  behind  her  the  happy  years  of  useful  toil; 

before  her  the  crown  and  palm;   where  age  never  weakens, 

where  tears  never  dim  the  eyes,  where  sickness  never  comes, 

where  death  is  unknown,  where  farewells  are  never  spoken, 

where 

"  'Breezes  ever  fresh  with  Love  and  Truth 

Brace  the  frame  with  an  immortal  youth.' 

In  the  peaceful  hush  of  the  Sabbath  afternoon, 

On  a  sun-kissed  knoll,  fringed  with  the  perennial 

Beauty  of  pine  trees,  we  laid  her  away  to  rest. 

Softly  within  that  quiet  resting-place 

We  laid  her  weary  frame, 

And  bade  the  clay  press  lightly  on  her, 

Till  the  night  be  past. 

And  then  Far  East  gives  note  of  rising  day, 

The  day  of  reappearing  how  it  speeds ! 

He  who  is  true  and  faithful  speaks  the  word. 

Then  shall  we  be  with  those  we  love. 

Then  shall  we  be  forever  with  the  Lord. 

W.  K.  Beans. 


9fa.</. 


■4^ 


APPENDIX. 

INDUSTRY  THE  ROAD  TO  SUCCESS. 

Prize  Essay,  1849. 

Industry,  like  most  of  man's  commendable  traits,  is 
almost,  if  not  entirely,  acquired.  Upon  a  strict  examina- 
tion of  his  character,  it  will  be  found  that  he  is  made  up 
of  acquirements  to  a  very  great  extent.  However,  his 
Creator  has  been  very  benevolent  in  furnishing  him  with  a 
vigorous  constitution  and  an  active  intellect.  A  constitu- 
tion which,  if  prudently  used,  is  proof  against  the  severest 
assaults,  and  a  mind  which  can  not  be  easily  circumscribed. 
What  is  the  inference  to  be  drawn  from  these  two  facts? 
The  most  reasonable  conclusion  that  can  be  arrived  at  is, 
that  they  were  formed  for  habits  of  industry.  Those  well- 
developed  muscles,  those  limbs  so  wisely  arranged,  and 
that  mercurial  mind  fully  warrant  the  above  assertion.  It 
would  be  placing  a  stigma  upon  the  character  of  man's 
great  Architect,  to  suppose  that  He  made  a  work  so  noble 
to  remain  in  a  state  of  inactivity.  It  was  given  for  high 
and  noble  purposes,  and  its  exercise  is  indispensable  to 
the  accomplishment  of  those  purposes.  If  we  would  suc- 
ceed in  any  enterprise,  however  small  or  important  it  may 
be,  industry  will  mold  our  characters  so  far  as  success 
extends,  and  that  will  be  proportionate  with  our  exertions. 
There  is  an  illimitable  space  where  the  mind  may  range 
without  molestation,  and  an  extensive  field  of  action  for 
the  physical  system  to  display  its  powers.  The  exercise 
of  the  body  and  mind  is  the  source  from  which  all  have 
derived  their  greatness  and  renown.  As  industry  is  neces- 
sary to  insure  success,  so  its  opposite  will  inevitably  blast 
the  brightest  expectations  of  man.  Indolence  renders  an 
individual  a  mere  cipher  in  this  world  of  activity  and  ex- 

63 


64  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

citement.  As  that  cipher  placed  to  the  left  of  a  decimal 
diminishes  its  value,  so  the  example  of  an  indolent  world 
detracts  much  from  the  nobility  of  labor.  Such  an  ex- 
ample has  its  weight  upon  that  propensity,  which  is  so 
natural  to  all  to  pass  the  time  in  ease.  This  disposition 
seems  to  be  generally  inherent  in  mankind,  where  it  has 
not  been  overcome  by  habits  of  industry.  Exceptions  there 
may  be,  but  the  probability  is  that  they  are  quite  rare. 
In  more  modern  times  the  opinion  has  gained  some  celeb- 
rity, that  it  is  dishonorable  to  labor,  especially  in  the 
manual  sense  of  that  term.  It  is  to  be  lamented  that  this 
opinion  is  gaining  strength  from  a  source  from  which  it 
should  be  least  expected.  There  are  two  ways  in  partic- 
ular in  which  this  opinion  is  encouraged. 

In  the  first  place,  we  encourage  it  too  much  by  our 
personal  example.    How  many  hours  are  suffered  to  pass 
away  without  either  manual  or  mental  employment !  Many 
have  wasted  time  which,  if  it  had  been  properly  applied, 
would  have  placed  them  in  an  enviable  condition  so  far  as 
it  regards  pecuniary  advantages,  and  in  a  still  more  envi- 
able position  as  it  regards  the  endowments  of  knowledge. 
The  time  idled  away  by  hundreds  and  thousands,  had  they 
the  control  of  it  again,  would  be  sufficient  to  insure  them 
at  least  a  respectable  knowledge  of  the  Latin,  Greek,  and 
Hebrew  languages.     In  the  second  place,  we  encourage 
this  opinion  by  our  silence,  thereby  tacitly  acknowledging 
that  it  is  not  honorable  to  labor  with  the  hand.    It  would 
appear  from  this  silence  that  far  the  greater  part  labor, 
because  necessity  demands  it  at  their  hands,  and  not  from 
any  honor  they  consider  connected  with  or  belonging  to 
labor.     It  is  infinitely  more  dishonorable  to  promulgate 
such  an  opinion  in  any  way  whatever,  than  it  is  to  earn 
our  bread  by  the  sweat  of  our  brow.     Who  are  to  blame 
for   the   prevalence   of   this   opinion?     The   fathers   and 
mothers  of  our  land  are  more  culpable  than  any  other 
class   of   persons   for   this   state   of  things.     Individuals 
brought  up  to  habits  of  industry  are  not  apt  to  forget  that 
training  when  they  arrive  at  years  of  maturity.     Such  is 
the  force  of  habit,  that  they  are  never  contented  when 


INDUSTRY  THE  ROAD  TO  SUCCESS.        65 

unemployed.  A  life  of  activity  scarcely  ever  fails  to  afford 
a  life  of  contentment.  Activity  is  the  proper  theater  of  the 
mind,  and  when  the  body  and  mind  are  actively  engaged 
the  latter  feels  at  home.  As  it  is  necessary  that  the  mind 
should  have  some  relaxation  from  toil,  this  can  be  done 
with  pleasure  and  profit  by  the  exercise  of  the  body. 
There  are,  it  is  true,  some  active  occupations  in  which 
it  is  impossible  for  men  to  be  happy,  because  they  are 
directly  at  war  with  their  consciences.  The  pursuits 
which  claim  man's  attention  are  so  numerous  and  praise- 
worthy, that  there  is  no  reason  why  he  should  forsake  an 
honorable  for  a  dishonorable  one,  or  choose  a  debasing 
one,  when  there  are  so  many  that  are  laudable.  What 
think  you  would  be  the  progress  of  the  social  condition, 
were  the  principle  of  universal  industry  adopted  and  car- 
ried out?  Such  expressions  as  "loafers'  corner"  and  "dog- 
geries," with  many  others,  would  become  obsolete  terms 
for  want  of  occasions  to  use  them.  All  places  of  useless 
amusement,  and  other  means  of  killing  time  as  they  are 
called,  would  be  abandoned,  and,  instead  of  murdering 
time,  men  would  have  inducements  to  use  all  their  ener- 
gies to  redeem  it.  Many  vices  which  are  a  curse  to  the 
human  family  would  be  blotted  out  of  existence;  such  as 
drunkenness,  gambling  of  every  species,  theft,  murder, 
and  all  the  evils  which  follow  in  their  train.  There  would 
not  be  laid  so  many  heavy  taxes  upon  our  States  and 
counties  for  building  receptacles  for  the  confinement  of 
culprits,  as  their  number  would  be  so  greatly  diminished. 
This  fact  has  been  fully  exemplified  by  the  Puritans  of 
New  England.  It  is  said  by  their  best  historian  that  such 
things  as  locks  and  keys  and  prisons  among  them  as  a 
people  were  not  needed.  This  happy  state  of  things  was 
owing,  in  a  great  degree,  to  their  very  strict  habits  of 
industry.  It  is  an  established  fact  that  all  the  cases  of 
theft  and  murder  are  generally  attributed  (and  correctly 
too)  to  that  class  of  individuals  denominated  loafers,  and 
not  to  the  industrious  classes  of  community.  Some  there 
are,  however,  who  argue  that  we  live  in  an  age  of  high 
attainments  and  refinements.  Therefore  we  should  not 
5 


66  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

model  after  the  customs  of  those  who  have  lived  in  the 
darker  periods  of  the  world.  In  some  respects  this  prin- 
ciple may  be  allowable,  but  by  no  means  should  it  be  an 
established  rule.  High  and  ennobling  objects  should  be 
imitated  and  respected  wherever  they  may  be  found. 
Happy  would  it  be  for  many  of  our  day  did  they  but  imi- 
tate the  example  of  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  in  this  respect; 
that  is,  their  love  of  industry.  Some  are  ready  to  say  that 
it  would  bring  society  upon  an  equality.  This  it  would 
most  undoubtedly  do,  and  it  is  the  very  best  reason  that 
could  be  offered  why  it  should  be  imitated.  Is  not  one  in- 
dividual as  good  as  another  just  so  far  as  his  or  her  con- 
duct comports  with  the  principles  of  good  breeding  and 
honesty?  Aside  from  strict  piety,  he  or  she  certainly  is. 
The  example  of  Peter  the  Great  of  Russia  is  worthy  the 
imitation  of  all,  whatever  their  position  may  be  in  the 
world.  He  did  not  think  it  beneath  his  dignity  to  lay  aside 
the  purple,  and  come  down  from  the  throne  to  become  a 
ship  carpenter,  thereby  showing  that  it  is  no  ignoble  thing 
to  labor.  He  was  not  ashamed  to  be  seen  mingling  with 
the  yeomanry  and  tradesmen  of  his  own  and  the  govern- 
ments of  other  potentates  of  the  land.  His  influence, 
nevertheless,  was  felt  among  the  high  and  the  low,  by  the 
intellectual  as  well  as  by  the  illiterate.  He  had  a  proper 
view  of  what  society  should  be,  and  employed  the  requisite 
means  for  the  accomplishment  of  that  object,  by  first  set- 
ting the  example. 

The  adaptedness  of  industry  to  success  in  all  the  avo- 
cations of  life  is  very  evident,  and  has  been  fully  demon- 
strated by  the  experience  of  all  who  have  made  any  display 
on  the  great  theater  of  life.  It  is  as  necessary  to  insure 
success,  as  is  the  light  to  the  healthy  growth  of  vegeta- 
tion. When  the  labor  of  the  mind  and  body  ceases,  then 
will  all  human  greatness  have  an  end.  Individuals  may 
sometimes  be  left  in  prosperous  circumstances  by  the 
labors  of  others,  yet  what  will  all  this  profit  them  without 
a  prudent  use  of  them?  Nothing,  unless  it  be  their  ruin- 
ation. So  it  is  in  a  literary  point  of  view  we  have  the 
labors  of  the  great  minds  of  the  past;  but  in  order  that 


INDUSTRY  THE  ROAD  TO  SUCCESS.        67 

they  may  be  of  some  practical  benefit  to  us,  we  must 
understand  them  for  ourselves;  another  can  not  for  us. 
The  examples  which  illustrate  this  position  are  sufficient 
to  fill  a  volume.  Demosthenes  acquired  his  undying  fame 
by  a  life  of  activity.  His  prospects  in  early  life  were  any- 
thing but  flattering.  A  deformed  person,  an  impediment 
of  speech,  and  poverty  were  the  highest  apparent  recom- 
mendations he  had  to  renown.  But  labor  and  persever- 
ance, like  "the  alchemy  which  turns  everything  it  touches 
into  gold,"  made  from  that  combination  of  imperfection 
the  brightest  gem  in  the  crown  of  Grecian  orators.  Co- 
pernicus, Galileo,  Kepler,  and  Newton  by  their  active  in- 
dustry have  left  an  enduring  remembrance  of  their  acts 
worthy  the  admiration  of  every  enterprising  individual. 
What  would  be  the  condition  of  the  scientific  world  with- 
out their  discoveries?  Instead  of  occupying  the  exalted 
situation  that  she  now  does,  we  would  behold  her  sitting 
enshrouded  by  the  ignorance  and  superstition  of  the  fif- 
teenth and  sixteenth  centuries.  Galileo  discovered  new 
worlds  and  the  means  of  bringing  them  within  the  range 
of  our  vision,  but  it  was  left  for  Newton  to  explain  the 
laws  by  which  they  are  kept  in  motion.  Although  much 
of  Newton's  greatness,  and  of  that  which  would  have  been 
valuable  in  the  arts  and  sciences,  have  been  partially  lost 
by  his  mischievous  "Diamond;"  yet  there  is  still  enough 
left  to  entwine  a  wreath  around  his  brow,  which  will  be 
ever  green  while  science  and  literature  shall  flourish. 
How  did  Erasmus,  Sir  William  Jones,  and  Adam  Clarke 
become  so  eminent  as  linguists?  Was  it  by  the  common 
efforts  put  forth  by  the  generality  of  men,  or  was  it  not 
by  all  of  their  energies  united  with  severe  application? 
The  latter  most  assuredly,  or  Jones  could  never  have  be- 
come acquainted  with  twenty-eight  languages,  many  of 
which  he  could  converse  in,  and  none  of  that  number  but 
he  could  master  with  the  Lexicon ;  yet  the  greater  part  of 
his  life  was  taken  up  in  his  profession  and  writing  on 
various  subjects  which  are  known  and  read  with  interest. 
This  is  fully  as  true  of  Clarke  as  of  Jones.  He  was  prob- 
ably acquainted  with  upwards  of  twenty  languages  which 


68  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

were  analyzed  by  him  with  as  much  apparent  ease  as  his 
mother  tongue.  In  addition  to  all  this  he  preached  some 
thousands  of  sermons,  wrote  a  Commentary  to  the  entire 
Bible,  and  other  theological  works.  This  was  the  indi- 
vidual who  in  his  school  days  was  considered  below  the 
mediocrity  of  his  schoolmates  in  point  of  intellect,  yet 
by  a  life  of  industry  he  became  the  most  learned  man  of 
England  in  his  day.  We  have  another  monument  in  our 
own  country  of  what  industry  can  accomplish.  This  is 
the  learned  blacksmith  of  New  England.  His  industry 
and  prudent  use  of  time  have  acquired  for  him  a  knowl- 
edge of  upwards  of  fifty  languages.  Is  it  not  astonishing 
that  he  could  work  at  his  occupation,  and  yet  arrive  at  a 
position  so  desirable  in  learning?  Let  all  adopt  his  man- 
ner of  improving  time,  and  they  can  not  fail  of  surpassing 
their  own  expectations,  should  they  not  accomplish  one- 
fourth  of  what  he  did.  Let  an  indolent  world  examine  the 
history  of  Bacon  and  Eocke,  and  show,  if  they  can, 
whether  their  gigantic  intellects  were  the  result  of  a  life 
of  study  and  application ;  or  do  they  suppose  for  a  moment 
that  their  names  would  have  occupied  the  exalted  position 
they  now  do,  had  they  not  been  hard  students  all  their 
lives?  Their  literary  works  are  the  mirrors  in  which  may 
be  seen  the  true  characters  of  their  minds  and  the  evi- 
dences of  their  untiring  labors.  Harvey  has  left  a  monu- 
ment which  will  always  be  as  a  waymark  pointing  to  the 
goal  of  fame,  with  the  inscription  on  it  that  "Industry  is 
the  only  sure  road  to  success."  Matthew  Hale  and  Wil- 
berforce,  the  benefactors  of  their  race,  gained  that  title 
by  no  other  means  than  by  a  life  of  unremitting  labor.  It 
may  be  said  their  philanthropy  secured  for  them  that  high 
meed  of  praise  which  so  richly  clusters  around  their 
names.  This  no  doubt  had  something  to  do  with  their 
renown;  but  divest  them  of  their  active  lives,  and  all  the 
benevolence  they  possessed  would  be  as  unworthy  of  that 
appellation,  as  is  the  merest  idler  you  can  portray  to  your 
minds.  It  is  a  thought  which  had  its  birth  in  the  mind 
of  a  great  writer,  "that  there  can  be  no  true  nobility 
without  labor."    It  is  of  little  importance  how  ennobling 


INDUSTRY  THE  ROAD  TO  SUCCESS.        69 

the  qualities  of  an  individual  are,  if  they  are  suffered  to 
be  confined  within  the  narrow  limits  of  his  or  her  heart 
without  exercising  them  so  as  to  benefit  others.  They 
will  grow  languid  and  offensive  for  want  of  employment. 
In  fact,  they  will  degenerate  until  they  are  converted  into 
degraded,  instead  of  noble  qualities.  There  is  nothing  of 
any  value  which  is  not  applied  to  some  useful  purpose, 
let  it  be  ever  so  valuable  in  itself.  A  piece  of  gold  is  of 
no  more  value  to  a  small  child  than  a  piece  of  iron,  for  it 
is  only  beneficial  as  a  toy  and  a  piece  of  iron  will  amuse 
the  child  as  much  as  a  piece  of  gold.  So  it  is  with  noble 
qualities  in  individuals  who  do  not  use  them.  Indolent 
persons  are  of  no  more  advantage  to  the  world  than  so 
many  lifeless  statues,  for  they  only  consume  that  which 
rightly  belongs  to  those  who  have  been  unfortunate,  and 
are  no  longer  able  to  labor.  Franklin's  example  has  come 
down  to  posterity  freighted  with  illustrious  deeds.  His 
discoveries  and  luminous  writings  savor  much  of  a  life 
of  labor  and  severe  toil.  He  could  spend  a  large  portion 
of  his  life  in  the  service  of  his  country,  and  then  by  a 
prudent  use  of  the  scraps  of  his  life  gain  enough, 
exclusive  of  his  ministerial  labors,  to  immortalize  his 
name.  Had  he  been  reared  by  parents  who,  like  many  of 
our  day,  suppose  it  a  dishonorable  thing  to  labor,  in  all 
probability  the  discovery  of  electricity  would  have  been 
the  theme  of  praise  to  some  other  one.  America,  too,  at 
that  critical  period  of  her  advancement  might  have  suf- 
fered materially  for  want  of  a  Franklin  to  defend  her 
rights,  who  was  as  firm  and  uncompromising  in  the  cause 
of  liberty,  as  he  was  wise  and  honest.  Such  men  as 
Washington,  Jefferson,  and  John  Q.  Adams,  had  they 
not  been  living  models  of  industry,  in  vain  would  we  look 
for  that  halo  of  glory  which  surrounds  their  names.  What 
country  or  nation  would  not  be  proud  of  such  erudites 
as  they  ?  Ah  !  proud  America,  those  were  they  who  have 
given  the  brightest  luster  to  thy  name.  Let  it  ever  be  thy 
greatest  delight  and  care  to  preserve  what  they  through 
a  long  life  of  toil  have  conferred  upon  thee !  No  one  of 
our  statesmen  deserves  to  be  revered  more  for  what  he 


70  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

has  done  for  the  establishing  of  republican  principles 
than  John  Q.  Adams.  Upwards  of  sixty  years  he  was  an 
active  servant  for  the  American  people.  What  an  example 
of  honesty,  uprightness  of  character,  and  rigid  industry 
for  the  young  statesman,  let  his  political  opinions  be  what 
they  may !  Almost  his  last  breath  and  his  last  act  was 
employed  for  the  good  of  his  country.  It  may  be  said  of 
him,  as  it  has  been  said  of  another  benefactor  of  mankind, 
that  he  "died  at  his  post."  The  ship  of  State  never  had 
a  more  successful  pilot  than  Adams.  So  dearly  was  he 
attached  to  her  interests,  that  he  did  not  forsake  her  to 
breathe  out  the  few  remaining  hours  of  his  life  in  the 
quiet  of  the  domestic  circle,  but  died  upon  the  deck  with 
the  rudder  in  his  hand. 

The  error  so  prevalent  in  the  world  at  the  present  time 
that  God  confers  upon  one  individual  talents  of  a  high 
order,  while  seemingly  He  passes  others  by,  would  have 
but  little  foundation  did  all  have  the  same  early  intellectual 
training  and  the  same  advantages  during  life.  The  senti- 
ment in  the  following  lines  is  strictly  true : 

"  'T  is  education  forms  the  common  mind, 
Just  as  the  twig  is  bent  the  tree 's  inclined." 

It  would  seem  from  the  above  that  defective  education 
is  the  principal  cause  of  the  apparent  difference  of  men's 
mental  capacities,  and  it  is  not  to  be  attributed  to  any  very 
great  difference  there  may  be  in  the  original  condition  of 
the  mind.  Mind  is  a  progressive  principle,  and  by  appli- 
cation and  perseverance  it  may  be  made  to  surpass  all 
human  expectation.  If  it  were  possible  to  confine  two 
persons  from  their  infancy  in  a  comparatively  secluded 
condition  for  a  specified  period,  where  they  should  receive 
precisely  the  same  training,  we  have  just  grounds  to  con- 
clude that  one  would  not  excel  the  other  in  superiority 
of  intellect.  The  great  difference  between  the  capacities 
of  different  individuals  may  be  accounted  for  upon  reason- 
able principles.  If  we  will  take  the  trouble  to  observe  men 
and  things,  we  will  see  that  the  circumstances  under  which 
men  are  placed  differ  widely  in  their  characters,  and  their 


INDUSTRY  THE  ROAD  TO  SUCCESS.        71 

minds  will  differ  just  as  they  are  influenced  by  physical 
or  other  causes.  One  correct  step  in  the  commencement 
of  any  undertaking  may  set  in  motion  a  train  of  events 
which  lead  to  greatness  and  renown,  while  a  misstep  may 
place  obstructions  in  the  way,  which  nothing  but  the  most 
unyielding  perseverance  will  be  able  to  surmount.  Small 
things  frequently  bring  about  the  most  important  results. 
Then  can  we  wonder  at  the  great  variety  of  talent  we 
witness?  Probably  it  would  be  taking  too  high  a  ground 
to  say  that  there  is  no  difference  whatever  in  the  strength 
of  different  minds  in  their  original  state,  but  with  safety 
it  may  be  asserted  that  the  difference  falls  very  far  short 
of  what  it  is  represented  to  be  by  far  the  greater  portion 
of  the  world.  There  have  been  many  towering  intellects 
which  have  rusted  and  lain  torpid  beneath  the  rubbish  of 
ignorance  and  superstition  merely  for  want  of  proper  culti- 
vation and  exercise.  As  some  of  the  most  brilliant  gems 
lie  hid  in  nature  and  only  need  the  hand  of  the  artist  to 
show  their  hidden  beauty,  so  it  has  ever  been  and  still  is 
with  the  human  mind.  Let  education  do  its  office  upon 
such  minds,  and  their  brilliancy  and  excellence  will  be  as 
astonishing  as  any  that  ever  have  been  admired  or  eulo- 
gized. Excellence  is  the  offspring  of  labor,  both  mental 
and  physical.  There  may  be  labor  without  excellence  in 
every  sense  of  that  term,  but  there  can  be  no  excellence 
without  labor.  For  example,  such  men  as  Voltaire,  Hume, 
and  Paine  gained  all  their  learning  by  their  mental  exer- 
tions, yet  their  excellence  was  confined  to  or  existed 
merely  in  their  being  learned.  As  it  regards  moral  excel- 
lence, they  were  as  devoid  of  that  as  was  the  fig-tree  which 
was  cursed  for  its  barrenness.  It  would  be  impossible 
for  an  individual  to  spend  a  long  and  laborious  life  in  the 
acquirement  of  knowledge,  and  yet  not  arrive  at  excel- 
lence of  some  kind,  because  it  is  a  necessary  result  of 
labor.  It  is  a  principle  of  philosophy,  that  there  can  not 
be  an  effect  without  a  cause.  On  the  same  parity  of 
reasoning  a  cause  can  not  be  employed  without  produc- 
ing some  effect.  In  order,  then,  that  industry  may  produce 
its  designed  effect  upon  the  character  of  man,  it  is  neces- 


72  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

sary  that  his  labors  be  confined  to  objects  effecting  the 
social,  intellectual,  and  moral  conditions  of  mankind,  and 
not  to  satisfying  his  own  corrupt  ambition,  which  fre- 
quently induces  him  to  exert  all  his  intellectual  and  other 
powers  for  the  annihilation  of  morality  and  religion. 
Should  such  a  view  of  what  industry  can  accomplish  be 
a  correct  one,  where  are  the  parents  who  would  not  use 
all  their  exertions  to  enforce  its  truth  upon  the  minds  of 
their  children,  and  show  their  utter  disapprobation  of  an 
opinion  which  is  antagonistic  to  labor,  then  to  all  who 
have  understanding,  the  admonition  of  the  Wise  Man 
upon  this  subject  is  the  very  best  that  could  be  offered, 
"Whatsoever  thy  hand  findeth  to  do,  do  it  with  thy  might." 


VIRTUE  THE  GUARDIAN  OF  NATIONS. 

Oration  and  Welcome  Address  to  the  Orator  of  the  Philisonlan 

Society. 

[This  was  the  oration  that  called  forth  the  remark  of  the  President  of 
the  L,aw  School  of  Indiana,  that  I  was  making  a  great  mistake  in  being 
a  minister,  and  that  I  ought  to  be  a  lawyer.] 

Virtue  being  an  abstract  principle,  will  not  admit  of 
a  definition.  It  is  a  word  which  in  the  course  of  time  has 
acquired  new  significations,  arising  from  its  application 
to  certain  acts  which  mankind,  either  from  personal  no- 
tions, or  from  what  is  truly  ennobling  and  elevating,  have 
endeavored  to  immortalize.  Some  of  the  ancients  under- 
stood by  the  term  that  we  now  call  valor,  courage  or 
bravery.  Such  was  the  importance  they  attached  to  this 
principle,  that  all  virtues  were  by  them  finally  deified. 
Marcellus,  a  distinguished  Roman,  erected  two  temples 
in  his  day — one  to  Virtue,  and  another  to  Honor.  These 
were  so  arranged  that  it  was  impossible  for  any  one  to 
get  into  the  temple  of  Honor  until  he  had  passed  through 
the  temple  of  Virtue.  The  allegory  is  no  less  true  than 
happy — it  is  equally  applicable  to  the  notions  which 
heathen  and  Christian  nations  hold  respecting  virtue. 
When  the  Spartan  mothers  presented  to  their  sons  their 
weapons  of  warfare,  with  the  impartive  charge  not  to  re- 


VIRTUE  THE  GUARDIAN  OF  NATIONS.      73 

turn  from  the  contest  without  bringing  their  shields  with 
them,  they  supposed  they  were  inculcating  in  the  bosoms 
of  their  democratic  children  the  highest  and  most  en- 
nobling attribute  of  the  human  soul.  Neither  did  the  edu- 
cation thus  imparted  fail  to  accomplish  what  had  been  so 
fondly  pictured  by  their  imaginations.  It  was  in  a  word 
to  them  the  "magnum  bonutn"  of  all  their  desires.  It  may 
be  thought  that  the  amount  of  human  misery  produced  by 
their  high  estimate  of  valor  exceeded  the  sum  of  happi- 
ness arising  therefrom.  Whether  this  be  true  or  not  one 
thing  is  very  evident,  they  did  not  thus  judge  concerning 
virtue.  They  felt  satisfied  that  she  had  amply  rewarded 
them  for  all  their  toil  and  care  in  nourishing  this  to  them 
so  invaluable  principle.  There  can  be  no  doubt  but  that 
the  love  of  liberty  for  which  the  Spartans  and  other 
nations  of  antiquity  were  characterized  was  intimately 
connected  with  what  they  understood  by  the  term  virtue. 
The  inference  then  clearly  is ;  and  history  fully  establishes 
the  conclusion  that  they  considered  valor  the  guardian  of 
their  liberties.  We  have  then  derived  our  understanding 
of  virtue  from  the  foregoing  view,  but  we  hope  we  place 
an  estimate  as  much  superior  to  that  which  heathen 
nations  placed  upon  it,  as  our  opportunities  and  light 
surpass  theirs. 

But  the  question  may  arise  here,  What  are  its  relations 
to  nations  and  States  ?  The  investigation  of  this  question 
might  well,  and  unquestionably  should,  enlist  the  minds 
of  the  profoundest  philosophers  and  statesmen.  To  deter- 
mine the  exact  relations  between  this  principle  and  States 
is  doubtless  of  paramount  importance  to  all  governments, 
but  especially  to  those  that  are  democratic  in  their  forms. 
So  intimate  are  the  relations  between  virtue  and  govern- 
ments, that  nearly  six  thousand  years  have  conclusively 
demonstrated  that  the  perpetuity  and  prosperity  of  the  one 
had  been  proportionate  to  the  happy  blending  and  vitality 
of  the  other,  and  the  practical  respect  the  agents  of  gov- 
ernments have  paid  to  these  relations.  But  the  greatest 
intellects  are  not  the  only  ones  that  are  capable  of  recog- 
nizing these  important  relations ;  the  more  superficial  mind 


74  STORY  OF  MY  LIFB. 

may  with  considerable  clearness  perceive  these  relations, 
though  not  with  the  same  distinctness  and  comprehension. 
These  relations  will  be  more  apparent  if  we  but  take  a 
cursory  view  of  the  rise,  progress,  and  overthrow  of  some 
of  the  important  nations  in  the  Old  World.  If  we  com- 
mence with  Egypt,  which  was  the  mother  of  the  Arts  and 
Sciences,  and  boasted  at  one  time  her  twenty  thousand 
cities,  we  will  see  the  utter  impossibility  of  a  nation  pros- 
pering any  great  length  of  time,  whatever  may  be  its  lit- 
erary, scientific,  and  physical  advantages,  when  virtue 
has  been  disregarded  and  even  repulsed  from  the  precincts 
of  society.  Because  virtue  did  not  occupy  its  merited 
place  among  them,  she  has  long  since  become  a  blank 
among  the  nations  of  the  earth.  The  Medes  and  Persians 
were  equally  as  destitute  of  this  saving  principle  as  were 
the  nations  of  Africa.  Though  the  Persian  Empire  was 
extensive  and  powerful,  both  as  regards  wealth  and 
numbers,  yet  the  dissolute  habits  and  wickedness  of  its 
citizens  soon  brought  her  under  the  superior  valor  of  the 
Macedonians.  In  like  manner  Greece  also  degenerated 
in  her  love  of  liberty  and  physical  power,  in  proportion  as 
she  lost  sight  of  virtuous  principles.  When  her  States 
threw  themselves  into  internal  commotions  and  wars,  she 
virtually  gave  herself  up  to  be  crushed  by  the  barbarity 
of  iron-footed  Rome.  The  longevity  of  this  government 
and  her  advancement  in  literature  and  the  fine  arts,  were 
the  results  of  the  love  of  liberty  and  the  moral  virtues  of 
her  citizens. 

Next  Rome  makes  herself  the  proud  mistress  of  the 
world,  then  gives  free  course  to  all  the  corruptions  of 
fallen  human  nature  and  becomes  her  own  destroyer.  Let 
her  own  Neros,  Syllas,  and  Caligulas  tell  of  some  of  the 
outrages  committed  on  virtue,  and  then  you  will  have  a 
faint  idea  of  the  political  degeneracy  and  wanton  profli- 
gacy of  many  of  her  citizens.  Probably  it  was  some  such 
a  view  as  this  that  caused  the  great  Roman  orator  to 
exclaim,  "O  tempora !  O  mores  !"  If  we  trace  the  history 
of  Great  Britain,  we  will  see  that  her  civil  progress  and 
advancement  in  literature  have  been  proportionate  to  her 


VIRTUE  THE  GUARDIAN  OF  NATIONS.     75 

adherence  to  virtuous  principles.  Her  history  is  no  doubt 
truthful,  where  it  says  that  her  dark  spots  and  the  out- 
breaking cruelties  of  many  of  her  kings  and  nobles  hap- 
pened in  those  periods  when  virtue  was  almost  an  entire 
stranger  within  her  borders.  England's  present  enviable 
position  as  regards  wealth  and  learning  is  owing  to  the 
fact  that  Virtue's  broad  shield  has  been  protecting  her  for 
the  last  two  hundred  years.  It  is  not  to  be  understood 
from  this  remark  that  the  opposite  of  virtue  has  no  place 
among  that  people,  for  that  place  where  virtue  is  sole 
occupant  may  not  be  found.  The  many  revolutions  in 
France,  the  unrivaled  persecutions,  the  Reign  of  Terror, 
and  the  unequaled  wickedness  and  profligacy  of  the  masses 
of  the  people  there  loudly  declare  the  almost  entire  absence 
of  virtuous  principles.  Would  it  be  too  much  to  say  that 
France  might  have  been  at  the  present  one  of  the  greatest 
republics  in  existence  had  she  united  with  her  widespread 
intelligence  a  high  tone  of  pure  religion  or  virtue?  We 
think  not.  But  listen  to  her  magistrates,  assembly  men, 
and  leaders  in  the  Revolution  making  a  proclamation  that 
there  is  no  God  but  Reason,  and  even  challenging  the 
Great  I  Am  to  a  contest  with  them !  Knowledge  by  all 
must  be  considered  a  great  blessing  when  associated  with 
virtue,  but  will  only  make  men  and  nations  the  embodi- 
ments of  all  evil  when  it  is  entirely  disjoined  from  virtue. 
Let  the  whole  world  arrive  at  the  highest  possible  position 
of  intelligence  you  can  conceive  of,  and  banish  virtue  from 
the  world,  then  could  you  gain  some  eminence  where 
you  could  view  their  transactions  with  one  another,  you 
would  behold  a  scene  that  would  make  you  think  that  the 
inhabitants  of  Tartarus  had  taken  up  a  temporary  abode 
on  earth.  Better  leave  the  world  in  total  ignorance  and 
heathenism,  than  enlighten  them  without  Christianizing 
them.  If  this  hasty  view  of  the  most  important  nations 
is  a  correct  one,  there  is  manifestly  an  important  relation 
existing  between  virtue  and  nations,  and  tlie  most  super- 
ficial observer  must  see  that  relation. 

This  leads  us  to  notice  some  of  the  most  marked  abuses 
of  virtue,  and  the  consequences  that  have  and  will  follow 


?6  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

such  abuses.  Our  remarks  upon  this  portion  of  our  sub- 
ject will  be  confined  more  exclusively  to  republican  forms 
of  government,  as  it  is  evident  that  other  forms  of  govern- 
ment can  better  dispense  with  virtue  than  those  based  on 
democratic  principles.  Therefore  this  leading  proposition 
may  be  laid  down,  that  no  government  can  long  exist 
where  the  people  are  the  fountain  of  all  power,  without 
a  strict  attention  to  the  intellectual  and  moral  education 
of  those  composing  such  government.  This  proposition 
has  been  too  clearly  demonstrated  by  able  writers,  upon 
the  relations  existing  between  virtue  and  civil  society,  to 
require  from  us  any  arguments  to  substantiate  it,  other 
than  those  we  have  already  given  in  our  previous  remarks 
on  their  relations.  As  an  example  of  the  abuse  of  virtue 
we  may  cite  your  attention  to  the  Carthaginian  Republic, 
noted  for  its  mercantile  advantages,  its  advancements 
in  agriculture,  and  its  scientific  and  literary  advancement 
at  different  periods  of  its  history,  all  which  things  are  to 
be  taken  into  consideration  in  judging  of  the  power  and 
civilization  of  a  people.  What  were  the  causes  of  her 
downfall?  Let  the  voice  of  history  speak.  Oppressive 
laws,  corrupt  rulers,  inordinate  desire  of  conquest,  and 
hostile  factions  within  her  own  bosom.  All  these  things 
but  too  surely  declare  the  absence  of  virtue,  or  at  least 
that  that  element  which  is  the  great  bulwark  of  a  popular 
government  had  but  a  feeble  and  inefficient  existence.  We 
may  adduce  one  more  example  from  the  ancient  republics 
to  establish  this  point.  As  the  Roman  Government  was 
the  most  prominent  of  all  the  republics  of  antiquity,  our 
attention  may  be  directed  to  it  for  a  moment.  What  was 
her  reputation  and  power?  The  record  of  her  fame  has 
employed  the  pens  of  many  able  writers,  and  her  deeds 
are  on  the  tongue  of  nearly  every  schoolboy  and  collegian 
of  this  and  other  lands.  After  enjoying  the  advantages  of 
a  democratic  government  for  several  hundred  years,  dur- 
ing which  time  she  acquired  almost  unlimited  territory  and 
power,  she  suffered  corruption  and  vice  to  insinuate  them- 
selves into  her  institutions,  so  that  the  declaration  of  one 
of  her  most  renowned  poets  was  literally  fulfilled  in  her 


VIRTUE  THE  GUARDIAN  OF  NATIONS.      77 

own  case,  that  "Power  not  directed  by  wisdom  falls  by  its 
own  weight."  Such  being  the  state  of  affairs,  the  people, 
at  the  instance  of  designing  men  (who  it  seems  are  never 
wanting),  were  influenced  to  change  their  form  of  gov- 
ernment somewhat.  The  provinces  of  the  republic  were 
divided  among  triumvirs,  who  soon  became  exceedingly 
jealous  of  each  other.  Pompey  and  Caesar  had  their  re- 
spective friends,  who  were  willing  to  follow  them  to  the 
field  of  carnage,  and  pour  out  their  life's  blood  to  augment 
their  power.  The  hatred  between  these  two  aspirants 
became  so  violent,  that  Caesar  broke  the  league  and  passed 
the  Rubicon  and  Roman  freedom  expired.  Internal  dis- 
sensions, intemperance,  ambitious  leaders,  love  of  con- 
quest, and  corrupt  laws  were,  we  see,  the  leading  causes 
of  another  republic's  fate.  Though  intelligence,  all  things 
considered,  was  pretty  generally  disseminated,  yet  she  did 
not  possess  sufficient  virtue  among  her  citizens,  and  espe- 
cially among  her  rulers,  to  protect  the  rights  of  her  people. 
Tacitus,  one  of  her  most  honored  historians,  has  said :  "It 
is  much  easier  to  praise  than  to  establish  a  republican  gov- 
ernment; and  when  it  is  established,  it  can  not  be  of  long 
duration."  In  his  day,  when  they  had  not  learned  the 
intimate  relation  existing  between  virtuous  principles  and 
popular  government,  this  declaration  was  no  doubt  true. 
It  might  prove  a  very  difficult  undertaking  to  convince 
the  American  people  that  when  such  a  form  of  government 
"is  established,"  that  "it  can  not  be  of  long  duration;" 
yet  this  declaration  is  as  true  as  that  Rome  and  Carthage 
have  fallen,  if  you  attempt  to  maintain  them  without  a 
rigid  adherence  to  virtuous  principles.  Had  Rome  pos- 
sessed more  such  men  as  Regulus,  who  were  willing  to 
become  martyrs  for  the  truth,  she  might  have  stood  till 
this  day,  the  proudest  monument  of  democracy  in  the 
world  and  the  literary  model  of  all  lands !  But  how  is 
the  mighty  fallen  and  all  her  glory  departed  !  And  all  this 
for  her  disregard  of  virtue !  The  dirge  of  her  misfortune 
has  long  since  been  written,  and  has  carried  to  the  heart 
of  many  a  lover  of  freedom  a  pang  of  sorrow  while  read- 
ing of  the  unfortunate  struggle  between  a  virtuous  minor- 


78  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

ity  and  a  vicious  and  unbridled  majority  for  the  liberty 
of  the  Seven-hilled  City  ! 

This  very  naturally  brings  us  to  the  pleasing  and  yet 
painful  task  of  noticing  the  successful  attempt  in  estab- 
lishing American  freedom.  We  say  pleasing,  because  the 
attempt  has  proved  successful ;  but  painful,  because  we  so 
often  see  fearful  omens  indicating  an  evil  result  of  this 
great  experiment.  As  has  already  been  said,  it  is  much 
easier  to  praise  than  establish  a  republican  government; 
but  unless  virtue  has  the  ascendency  in  such  government, 
it  will  be  much  more  difficult  to  maintain  than  even  to 
establish  one.  But  asks  one  lulled  to  rest  in  the  arms  of  a 
false  security,  "What  are  those  fearful  omens?"  Have 
you  not  heard  the  cry  of  "Disunion"  which  has  been  car- 
ried with  lightning's  speed  throughout  the  length  and 
breadth  of  Freedom's  home !  Nothing  of  the  heated  dis- 
cussions at  the  Capitol,  nothing  of  the  excitement  concern- 
ing the  "Fugitive  Slave  Law"  that  has  exasperated  so 
many  Americans !  Ah !  there  are  causes  for  fear ! — 
weighty  interests  that  should  arouse  every  slumbering 
American  to  activity — to  duty !  Let  it  never  be  said  that 
this  most  successful  attempt  at  self-government  has  also 
failed  from  want  of  enough  virtue  to  prop  and  sustain  this 
mighty  fabric.  Just  mark  the  spirit  that  is  abroad  in  this 
Government  with  reference  to  filling  offices  and  posts  of 
responsibility.  It  is  with  the  greatest  difficulty  that  we 
can  get  men  of  genuine  virtue  and  high  intellectual  ac- 
quirements to  announce  themselves  as  candidates  for  any 
office,  since  they  must  endure  all  the  scandal  and  opprobri- 
ous epithets  that  a  corrupt,  self-sufficient,  and  intriguing 
opponent  may  lavish  upon  their  untarnished  characters; 
they  would  rather  remain  at  home  in  the  embrace  of  a 
kind  and  interesting  family,  than  launch  forth  upon  the 
sea  of  political  strife.  What  is  the  reason  of  this  state  of 
things  ?  It  is  because  we  have  been  supporting  vagabonds, 
instead  of  men  of  virtue  and  acknowledged  mental  ability. 
So  long  as  you  support  men  of  corrupt  morals  in  prefer- 
ence to  men  of  moral  integrity,  you  may  reasonably  ex- 
pect corrupt  laws,  for  corrupt  fountains  can  send  forth 


VIRTUE  THE  GUARDIAN  OF  NATIONS.      79 

none  but  corrupt  waters.  "Tell  it  not  in  Gath,  publish  it 
not  in  the  streets  of  Askelon,"  that  there  are  no  fears  to 
be  entertained  for  the  perpetuity  of  our  Federal  Govern- 
ment while  the  majority  of  our  statesmen  are  wicked,  in- 
temperate, and  abandoned  men.  Americans  do  not  gener- 
ally know  whom  they  have  placed  at  the  head  of  their 
civil  affairs !  Ah !  could  you  but  once  draw  the  curtain 
aside  that  conceals  from  your  view  the  nocturnal  carous- 
ings  of  members  of  Congress,  the  visitings  of  coffee- 
houses, the  gambling  that  is  daily  practiced  there,  and 
other  licentious  proceedings,  you  will  then  see  many  just 
causes  of  alarm  !  We  are  aware  this  course  is  not  the  one 
that  is  commonly  pursued  by  young  tyros  in  speaking  of 
the  great  men  of  this  Nation,  yet  we  should  aim  at  truth 
first,  then  eulogize.  We  are  happy,  yea  proud,  to  say  we 
have  a  few  exceptions,  a  few  men  in  our  Government 
who  are  above  suspicion  in  such  matters;  but  alas!  how 
few  they  are !  What  an  interesting  spectacle  it  must  be 
to  look  upon  such  a  body  of  men  as  annually  meet  at  the 
Capital  of  these  Confederate  States  to  see  the  interests  of 
the  same  with  the  reflection  that  the  majority  of  these 
same  men  are  immoral,  intemperate,  and  practiced  gam- 
blers; yea,  many  of  them  think  they  can  not  even  make  a 
speech  on  any  great  national  question  without  the  stimu- 
lus produced  by  ardent  spirits.  Many  of  our  laws  are 
the  offsprings  of  reeling  brains.  Think  not  that  this  is  an 
exaggerated  picture;  it  is  lamentably  true.  Draw  a  com- 
parison between  the  first  Congress  and  those  of  late  years, 
and  report  the  advancement  that  has  been  made  in  moral- 
ity and  virtue.  Instead  of  a  God-fearing,  pious  set  of 
Congressmen  as  characterized  that  memorable  body,  we 
have  advanced  so  far  in  the  scale  of  moral  excellence  that 
we  can  now  boast  of  men  who  pride  themselves  on  the 
amount  of  rum  they  can  daily  drink,  and  yet  stand  at  the 
helm  of  the  Ship  of  State  and  preserve  their  equilibrium. 
Yes,  they  have  so  rapidly  advanced  in  the  science  of  gov- 
ernment that  many  of  them  think  it  necessary  neither  to 
invoke  the  favor  of  Heaven  themselves,  or  to  have  a  chap- 
lain to  perform  this  important  duty  for  them.     But  our 


80  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

forefathers  did  not  even  dare  to  legislate  for  the  infant 
Republic  without  first  devoutly  craving  the  direction  of 
the  God  of  nations.  What  has  been  said  of  officers  of  the 
General  Government  will  hold  good  to  an  alarming  extent 
of  State  officers.  To  a  candid  observer  it  must  be  evident 
that  the  actions  of  many — very  many — of  our  politicians 
clearly  evince  that  the  liberty  and  perpetuity  of  our  re- 
vered Government  and  institutions  are  but  matters  of 
secondary  importance  with  them.  They  make  the  public 
crib  their  god,  and  their  constituents  their  tools  and  play- 
things. If  they  are  suffered  to  control  the  affairs  of  this 
Government  much  longer  they  will  sink  it,  probably  to  rise 
no  more  forever.  A  man  of  the  French  Government,  who 
spent  some  time  in  this  country  and  who  has  written  a 
large  work  on  American  democracy,  has  given  it  as  a 
result  of  his  extensive  observation  that  the  talent  of  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  is  greatly  inferior  to  that 
of  many  men  in  the  Government  who  are  debarred  from 
that  high  position.  There  is  need  of  a  revolution  in  this 
respect  in  our  country.  Our  best  men  should  have  charge 
of  our  governmental  affairs,  and  many  of  the  present 
office-seekers  discountenanced  entirely.  If  this  Republic 
meets  with  the  common  fate  of  popular  governments,  these 
we  prophesy  will  be  the  two  leading  causes  of  such  fate: 
viz.,  wicked  rulers  and  the  system  of  human  slavery  which 
we  are  cherishing  in  the  very  lap  of  liberty.  Who  knows 
but  it  is  the  viper  that  will  one  day  infuse  its  poison 
throughout  the  veins  and  vitals  of  this  Republic?  Alas! 
for  the  generation  that  shall  witness  that  day  when  the 
columns  of  this  Confederacy  shall  give  way,  and  the  un- 
supported fabric  of  dismembered  States  shall  grind  to 
powder  the  remains  of  all  that  was  great  and  ennobling. 
Such  is  a  faint  yet  true  picture  of  what  has  been  pre- 
figured in  the  political  horizon  of  America  during  the 
last  two  or  three  years.  We  may  here  with  propriety  ask 
the  question  that  Horace  once  asked,  "What  can  idle  laws 
do  without  morals?"  But  there  can  be  no  general  virtue 
where  there  is  no  individual  virtue,  consequently  no  civil 
freedom.    Whatever  then  tends  to  lessen  individual  virtue 


VIRTUE  THE  GUARDIAN  OF  NATIONS.     81 

strikes  a  fatal  blow  at  the  very  foundations  of  liberty.  O  ! 
that  we  could  see  our  Congress  halls  and  Legislatures 
filled  with  men  who  would  battle  with  error  and  incon- 
sistency, as  did  the  Father  of  his  Country,  John  Q.  Adams, 
and  Wilberforce.  Then  might  we  truly  and  enthusiastic- 
ally boast  of  our  free  institutions  and  self-government; 
but  until  this  is  the  case  our  boasting  will  be  vain  babbling 
and  will  only  excite  the  ridicule  of  foreign  Powers  who  do 
not  boast  so  much  about  their  liberty  as  we  do,  but  are 
far  more  consistent.  The  claims  this  Government  has 
upon  each  of  us  are  weighty  and  binding.  The  great  in- 
quiry with  every  true  American  should  be,  How  can  I  best 
subserve  the  interests  of  my  country  and  give  my  influ- 
ence to  preserve  her  States  "many  in  one?"  We  answer 
by  putting  our  best  men  into  the  law-making  department, 
and  as  soon  as  it  is  practicable  to  remove  the  unfortunate 
African  to  his  former  home.  Let  virtue  be  the  standard 
around  which  Americans  shall  ever  rally,  and  this  Repub- 
lic shall  have  announced  to  an  astonished  world  that  Time 
shall  be  no  more. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Philisonian  Society,  I  deeply  feel 
the  weight  of  the  responsibilty  growing  out  of  the  position 
to  which  you  have  elevated  me  on  this  memorable  occasion. 
I  am  almost  at  a  loss  to  know  what  would  be  the  most 
appropriate  point  to  touch  upon  connected  with  the  inter- 
est of  our  society  at  this  time.  But  since  your  object  is 
to  maintain  right,  reward  merit,  and  promote  virtue,  an 
application  of  the  principle  we  have  discussed  this  evening 
may  be  both  pertinent  and  appropriate.  There  are  not 
only  relations  existing  between  virtue  and  great  political 
compacts,  but  there  are  intimate  relations  also  existing 
among  smaller  bodies  such  as  our  own  in  a  proportionate 
degree.  Gentlemen,  if  you  would  successfully  carry  for- 
ward those  exalted  principles  of  right,  the  rewarding  of 
merit,  and  the  promotion  of  virtuous  actions,  you  must 
make  virtue  with  all  it  means  the  guardian  of  your  order, 
and  never  enter  upon  any  scheme  or  undertaking  without 
consulting  her  for  direction.  What  a  loud  call  and  press- 
ing demand  there  is  in  the  American  Republic  for  men  of 
6 


82  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

genuine  virtue  and  high  moral  integrity,  men  who  will 
maintain  our  free  institutions  and  bring  about  some  great 
moral  reforms  in  the  political  condition  of  our  country ! 
We  very  much  stand  in  need  of  a  recruit  of  such  men  as 
Washington  and  Old  Man  Eloquent  and  the  lamented 
Taylor.  We  have  many  truly  virtuous  men.  Whatever 
may  be  the  position  you  may  fill  in  life,  give  all  your  in- 
fluence in  favor  of  virtue  and  sound  morality.  Ever  let 
it  be  known  that  you  are  sworn  enemies  to  vice  and  in- 
trigue. Could  the  young  men  of  America  but  see  the  great 
conflict  that  is  awaiting  them  in  the  future,  they  no  doubt 
would  be  arming  themselves  with  the  invincible  weapons 
of  virtue  and  manfully  meet  the  growing  enemies  of 
American  freedom.  In  conclusion,  let  me  say:  Be  men 
in  mind,  men  in  virtue,  and  men  in  every  condition — more, 
be  God-fearing  men. 

Hon.  Mr.  James  Mcintosh,  my  much  respected  friend, 
as  the  representative  of  this  respectable  body  I  have  been 
chosen  to  welcome  you  back  to  your  Alma  Mater  and  the 
scenes  rendered  dear  to  you,  we  doubt  not,  in  other  years. 
We  are  not  entirely  ignorant  of  the  feelings  that  would 
naturally  be  awakened  in  the  heart  of  one  who  has  been 
absent  for  a  time,  and  then  permitted  to  renew  the  old 
associations  of  college  life  by  meeting  with  classmates, 
fellow-students,  and  instructors.  It  would  be  impossible 
for  me  to  describe  even  partially  the  feelings  that  are  now 
at  work  in  the  hearts  of  many  here,  but  they  may  be  read 
in  the  index  of  the  heart — the  countenances  of  this  large 
audience.  The  occasion  that  has  called  us  together  is  one 
of  great  and  vital  interest  to  us,  and  we  trust  that  it  will 
be  rife  with  pleasure  and  benefit  to  you.  We  think  in  our 
choice  of  a  man  to  address  us  at  this  time  we  have  been 
governed  strictly  by  our  motto,  "Meritum  dignitatis  noster 
regula  erit."  As  Philisonians  then  we  welcome  you  back, 
as  students  we  welcome  you  back,  and  we  hesitate  not  to 
say  that  the  board  of  instructors  and  the  citizens  of  Green- 
castle  who  knew  you  when  here  also  welcome  you  back, 
so  that  you  are  four  times  welcome ! 


THE  MISSION  OF  AMERICA.  83 

THE  MISSION  OF  AMERICA. 

July  Oration,  1852,  delivered  before  the  students  of  the  Indiana  As- 
bury  University. 

Though  America  is  a  theme  upon  which  so  many  have 
written,  still  it  presents  an  unfailing  source  of  matter  for 
the  orator  and  an  inexhaustible  fund  of  material  for  the 
poet.  Tell  me  not  that  the  subject  is  hackneyed  and  want- 
ing in  interest  because  so  many  have  written  and  spoken 
upon  it.  Better  tell  me  that  the  ocean  is  likely  to  be  ex- 
hausted of  its  unfathomable  treasure  of  water  by  the  finny 
tribe  that  sport  in  it,  than  to  say  that  the  home  of  Liberty 
contains  nothing  to  interest  its  occupants,  because  it  has 
been  so  often  eulogized  by  those  who  love  her  with  an 
endearing  and  unalloyed  affection.  Had  you  a  tried  bosom 
friend,  would  you  esteem  him  less  for  no  other  reason 
than  that  he  had  been  so  highly  applauded  by  his  ad- 
mirers? Surely  not.  As  has  been  said  of  the  fabled 
Hydra  that  had  a  hundred  heads  and  as  soon  as  one  was 
cut  off  there  came  two  in  the  place  thereof,  so  it  is  with 
our  beloved  land,  the  more  that  is  said  and  written  about 
it,  if  true,  only  heightens  it  in  the  estimation  of  all  true 
Americans  and  multiplies  material  for  its  future  glorifi- 
cation. 

We  shall  accomplish  all  that  we  desire  or  are  able  to 
effect  on  this  occasion,  if  we  can  but  present  this  subject 
in  an  intelligible  light  to  your  understandings,  and  impress 
your  minds  with  the  great  truth  that  you  all  are  or  very 
soon  shall  be  actors  in  the  most  important  mission  that 
was  ever  entrusted  to  any  nation  or  people.  "A  mission 
for  America !"  exclaims  one.  Yes,  a  mission  imposed 
upon  her  not  by  men  only,  but  by  the  Ruler  and  Controller 
of  the  affairs  of  men !  To  be  sure,  we  claim  for  it  no 
direct  or  positive  revelation  specifying  in  so  many  words 
that  the  Republic  of  America  is  to  accomplish  this  cer- 
tain work  for  the  rest  of  the  world;  but  we  claim  that  it 
is  scarcely  less  evident  that  such  a  demand  is  made  of  her 
by  Heaven  than  if  it  had  been  given  by  direct  revelation. 
If  we  will  but  admit  "that  there  is  a  Divinity  that  shapes 


84  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

our  ends" — and  we  are  bold  to  affirm  that  the  doctrine  of 
an  overruling  Providence  has  always  been  maintained  by 
this  Nation — we  will  surely  be  at  no  loss  to  trace  out  and 
develop  this  fact  in  our  short  but  eventful  history !  Who 
is  there  so  atheistic  in  his  views  that  after  he  has  once 
thoroughly  examined  the  history  of  this  country  but  can 
trace  the  footprints  of  Deity  hard  by  in  our  advance  to 
our  present  prosperity  and  elevation  in  the  scale  of  na- 
tions? Behold  yon  vessel  freighted  with  the  germs  of 
Freedom,  mounting  the  angry  billows  of  the  Atlantic  with 
her  prow  towards  the  recently  discovered  continent,  there 
to  transplant  what  for  so  many  centuries  in  the  Old  World 
had  been  smothered  by  the  weeds  of  despotism  and  an- 
archy. Providence  granted  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  a  safe 
voyage  across  the  mighty  deep,  and  finally  moored  them 
safely  by  Plymouth's  Rock,  where  they  did  not  forget 
to  bow  their  knees  and  offer  up  the  deepest  gratitude  of 
overburdened  hearts  for  His  protection  and  care,  thus 
clearly  showing  that  they  were  not  on  an  errand  of  self- 
aggrandizement,  but  that  God  had  brought  them  hither. 
Those  seeds  of  liberty  watered  by  their  tears  and  hallowed 
by  their  prayers  grew  with  unparalleled  rapidity  and  sym- 
metry. Here  under  the  shade  of  Freedom's  Banian  they 
worshiped  God  according  to  the  dictates  of  conscience, 
where  no  despot  dared  bound  their  religious  privileges. 
But  the  oppressive  parent,  not  willing  that  they  should 
enjoy  these  blessings  long  unmolested,  soon  imposed  her 
tyrannical  laws  upon  them  as  when  they  were  under  her 
immediate  watchcare.  But  the  thirst  for  freedom  already 
awakened  in  their  bosoms  was  not  to  be  extinguished  by 
the  combined  efforts  of  the  Mother  Country.  To  the  wilds 
of  America  they  had  come  to  enjoy  liberty  of  conscience, 
of  thought,  and  of  speech,  and  they  were  not  to  be 
thwarted  or  driven  from  their  object.  No  doubt  they  felt 
the  full  force  of  a  sentiment  uttered  by  a  master  Spirit 
of  the  Revolution,  "Give  me  Liberty  or  give  me  death!" 
Death  will  ever  be  preferable  to  tyranny,  when  once  the 
principles  of  freedom  have  been  deeply  seated  in  the  mind. 
They  had  indeed  from  an  Omnipotent  Source  an  assurance 


THE  MISSION  OF  AMERICA.  85 

of  final  success  in  the  glorious  cause  they  had  espoused, 
which  nerved  them  for  the  fearful  contest  that  was  shortly 
to  ensue.    They  had  a  just  cause  and  a  just  God  to  vindi- 
cate that  cause.    Was  it  not  this  firm  reliance  on  the  pro- 
tection of  Heaven  that  inspired  the  Congressmen  of  '76 
to  give  to  the  world  that  instrument  that  has  been  the 
wonder  of  men  and  a  terror  to  tyrants  ?    Is  it  strange  that 
we  should  so  venerate  those  men  who  gave  to  us  that  im- 
mortal instrument?     Will  ever  truer-hearted  men  grace 
the  Congress  of  these  Confederate  States  than  those  of 
'j6\  or  a  nobler  object  call  them  together  than  that  for 
which   they  were   convened?     But  who   were  they?     A 
Franklin  was  there,  an  Adams,  and  a  Sherman !    We  may 
not  now  name  them  all !     But  a  greater  than  these  was 
there — the  Divine  Presence  pervaded  that  memorable  as- 
sembly in  an  unusual  manner,  while  their  ardent  prayers 
were  ascending  to  the  God  of  nations  for  direction  in  the 
important  and  momentous  deliberations  of  that  eventful 
day  and  period !     Enter  with  me  to-day — for  this  is  the 
day  on  which  the  event  transpired — enter,  I  say,  with  me 
in  your  imaginations  into  that  old  Congress  Hall  in  the 
City  of  Brotherly  Love  and  witness  the  scene  that  there 
transpired !     Mark  those   dignified  yet  unassuming  men 
as  they  step  forward  one  after  another,  conscious  of  the 
rectitude  of  their  conduct  and  the  justice  of  the  act  they 
are  about  to  perform,  and  with  a  steady  hand  pen  down 
their  names  in  bold  characters,  signifying  thereby  "that 
their  fortunes  and  their  sacred  honors  were  pledged  to 
support  the  Declaration !"     Can  you  not  see  depicted  in 
their  countenances  all  that  an  illustrious  son  of  one  of 
those  signers  has  said  in  his  "supposed  speech"  concern- 
ing that  much  admired  document,  "Sink  or  swim,  survive 
or  perish,  I  am  for  the  Declaration!"     Did  those  men 
shrink  from  the  attitude  in  which  they  had  placed  them- 
selves to  the  Mother  Country  ?    No  !  they  stood  like  colos- 
sal pillars  sustaining  the  capacious  cathedral  of  Liberty 
they  had  reared  as  a  refuge  to  the  oppressed  and  down- 
trodden of  every  land.     This  glorious   achievement  has 
roused  the  British  Lion  from  his  lair !    Hark !  the  report 


86  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

of  distant  cannon  warns  them  of  the  approach  of  an  ex- 
asperated enemy !  The  tread  of  a  foreign  foe  is  shaking 
the  new  continent !  The  gallant  and  fearless  Colonists 
prepare  to  meet  them !  There  seems  to  be  a  fearful  odds 
against  the  little  phalanx,  but  the  Gideon  of  America  fears 
not  the  Scarlet  Coats,  saying  to  this  little  band,  "The 
battle  is  not  to  the  strong,"  but  to  those  fighting  in  free- 
dom's holy  cause.  When  we  consider  their  numbers  and 
inexperience  in  the  art  of  war,  how  are  we  to  account  for 
the  unexampled  success  of  the  American  arms?  They 
certainly  had  as  many  impediments  to  overcome  as  their 
antagonists;  nay,  had  they  not  more?  Would  you  know 
the  secret  of  their  success?  Come  here.  See  you  that 
man  kneeling  at  the  foot  of  yon  monarch  oak  with  eyes 
and  hands  raised  towards  heaven,  supplicating  the  God  of 
battles  that  victory  might  perch  upon  the  standard  of  the 
infant  Colonies?  Can  you  not  draw  an  argument  from 
this  scene  convincing  and  satisfactory  why  they  came  off 
triumphant?  When  the  old  Quaker  witnessed  this  strange 
and  heart-thrilling  act  of  the  American  general,  he  had 
no  hesitancy  in  avowing  his  belief  that  Columbia's  hon- 
ored sons  would  surely  be  the  victors,  assigning  as  his 
reason  that  George  was  consulting  the  Divine  Being  upon 
the  momentous  question.  Well  did  that  great  and  good 
man  know  where  his  strength  lay — in  the  arm  of  the 
Omnipotent !  What  would  have  been  the  fate  of  that 
handful  of  men  had  there  not  been  praying,  God-fearing 
men  among  them  who  daily  invoked  Heaven's  guidance  in 
their  struggles  for  liberty?  Thus  it  has  been  in  every 
conflict  our  country  has  had  with  the  British  Lion;  though 
greatly  inferior  to  her  antagonist,  she  has  ever  come  off 
triumphant !  Such  doubtless  will  ever  be  the  case,  so  long 
as  our  cause  is  that  of  justice  and  freedom. 

We  have  taken  this  cursory  view  of  our  early  history 
to  establish  our  previous  position,  that  this  Nation  has 
been  raised  up  by  a  gracious  Providence  for  a  high  and 
noble  purpose.  What  that  purpose  was  will  claim  our 
attention  for  a  short  time.  First,  we  remark  that  it  was 
reserved  for  this  people  to  solve  the  long-attempted  prob- 


THB  MISSION  OF  AMERICA.  87 

lem  of  self-government.  The  next  and  leading  object 
of  the  mission  of  the  Anglo-American  race  was  the  de- 
velopment and  dissemination  of  religious  and  political 
truths.  In  all  this  work  has  there  been  an  adaptation  of 
means  to  the  end  proposed?  The  showing  the  adaptation 
of  the  means  to  the  desired  end  will  claim  the  residue  of 
our  remarks  upon  this  subject.  A  question  very  naturally 
arises  just  here,  What  was  the  cause  of  the  inefficiency 
of  the  early  republics  in  not  fully  solving  the  problem 
of  self-government?  If  we  can  place  any  confidence  in 
history,  it  was  not  for  want  of  intelligence  and  learning, 
for  they  were  not  a  whit  behind  us  in  many  points  of  edu- 
cation and  intelligence.  Neither  was  it  for  want  of  zeal- 
ous men  to  move  forward  in  the  great  work,  for  their 
statesmen  and  orators  have  called  forth  the  eulogiums  of 
the  present  and  every  other  age  by  their  great  intellects 
and  overpowering  eloquence.  Neither  was  it  for  any  love 
of  country  that  they  did  not  possess,  for  they  are  said 
to  have  loved  their  country  and  institutions  with  a  devo- 
tion approaching  to  adoration ;  yet  failure  has  been  writ- 
ten in  legible  characters  upon  their  every  attempt.  What 
important  element,  then,  did  they  lack  in  effecting  the 
purpose  they  so  greatly  desired?  We  unhesitatingly  affirm 
that  they  needed  Christianity,  which  is  the  great  keystone 
in  the  arch  of  Freedom's  mighty  dome.  A  system  of  pure 
religion  would  have  preserved  them  as  proud  monuments 
of  human  liberty  till  the  present  day !  What  lover  of  free- 
dom does  not  lament  their  sad  fate  and  feel  like  shunning 
the  rocks  upon  which  their  vessel  wrecked  their  high- 
wrought  hopes  of  future  happiness  and  glory?  The  civil- 
ized world  are  ready  to  admit  that  Americans  have  given 
the  first  and  only  true  solution  to  this  intricate  problem 
that  has  so  long  puzzled  the  great  intellects  of  the  world. 
This  proud  structure  of  Freedom,  which  has  become  the 
admiration  of  earth's  millions,  has  for  its  basis  and  perma- 
nency the  broad  and  deep-laid  foundation  of  Christianity. 
Liberty  and  Christianity  are  bosom  companions  and  twin 
sisters  of  a  celestial  clime!  They  alone  can  make  earth 
a  paradise  and  the  desert  to  blossom  as  the  rose !    Sepa- 


88  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

rate  them  and  you  have  a  hell  on  earth,  where  idolatry 
and  superstition  reign  supreme !  There  can  be  no  true 
liberty  where  there  is  no  system  of  pure  religion  as  its 
foundation;  neither  can  religion  exert  the  influence  upon 
men  designed  by  its  Author,  unless  a  good  and  equitable 
system  of  laws  is  provided  to  guard  man's  religious  rights 
and  privileges.  We  admit  that  Christianity  may  flourish 
to  a  limited  extent  in  monarchies  and  despotisms;  but 
popular  governments  will  sink  so  sure  as  the  Christian 
system  is  separated  from  them.  Thus  far  we  see  the 
beautiful  and  necessary  relation  between  two  of  the  great- 
est acknowledged  principles  to  be  found  in  the  world. 
They  are  the  great  mainsprings  to  human  action !  Since 
this  connection  or  relation  between  liberty  and  revealed 
religion  is  so  manifest,  may  we  not  safely  infer  that  the 
Author  of  civil  society  has  established  this  relation  for 
the  happiness  and  well-being  of  man?  If  this  be  the 
truth — and  who  can  doubt  what  experience  has  so  amply 
demonstrated? — will  not  a  neglect  upon  the  part  of  gov- 
ernments to  strictly  observe  this  relation  be  the  most 
effectual  means  of  destroying  the  happiness  of  civil  soci- 
ety?   Most  assuredly  it  will. 

Thus  far  in  our  history  we  have  made  rapid  progress 
in  the  science  of  human  government,  and  have,  we  trust, 
laid  a  sure  and  permanent  foundation,  upon  which  have 
been  placed  many  of  the  stones  that  go  to  perfect  the 
magnificent  temple  of  Liberty.  The  day  is  not  very  far 
distant  when  the  crowning  stone  will  be  placed  upon  this 
lofty  fabric  by  master  hands  with  acclamations  of  final 
victory,  that  will  make  the  welkin  ring  and  reverberate 
along  the  walls  of  Heaven's  limitless  concave !  An  im- 
portant inquiry  presents  itself  to  us  as  Americans  at  this 
crisis  !  How  are  we  to  preserve  this  fabric  when  finished 
and  fully  adapted  to  our  use?  How  shall  we  best  pre- 
serve this  great  work  that  has  cost  the  blood  of  our  re- 
vered ancestry  and  their  greatest  anxiety  and  intellectual 
exertion?  Virtue  and  general  intelligence  are  undoubt- 
edly the  great  preserving  principles  in  any  form  of  gov- 
ernment; but  how  much  more  so  in  a  representative  gov- 


THE  MISSION  OF  AMERICA.  89 

eminent!  The  question  then  recurs,. Have  we  the  means 
of  becoming  virtuous  and  intelligent?  Let  us  examine 
and  find  out  if  possible  what  those  circumstances  and  op- 
portunities are  that  are  calculated  to  render  us  a  virtuous 
and  intelligent  people.  First,  the  benevolent  Creator  has 
constituted  us  moral  and  intellectual  beings,  capable  of 
indefinite  improvement,  with  the  ability  to  perceive  the 
obligations  arising  out  of  our  varied  relations,  with  an 
impulsive  power  urging  us  to  their  discharge.  In  ad- 
dition to  the  light  of  Nature,  He  has  given  us  a  system 
of  revealed  religion  making  clear  to  our  understandings 
what  Nature's  dim  light  never  could  make  clear  to  us. 
He  has  also  endowed  man  with  the  social  principle.  What 
would  he  be  without  society?  It  is  the  bond  that  unites 
the'  dearest  interests  of  the  race,  and  renders  man  a  bless- 
ing to  his  fellow-man.  So  long  as  we  follow  the  dictates 
of  this  principle  controlled  by  Christianity,  society  will 
rapidly  advance  toward  the  goal  of  human  perfectibility. 
If  men  would  but  use  aright  the  means  placed  within  their 
reach  for  the  elevation  of  society,  what  high  and  flattering 
hopes  there  would  be  for  poor  down-trodden  human  na- 
ture !  We  are  not  of  the  number  of  those  who  suppose 
that  mankind  are  deteriorating,  but  believe  that  we  are 
now  entering  the  golden  period  in  human  progression,  and 
that  our  own  country  is  to  be  the  great  center  from  which 
the  luminous  rays  will  pour  in  every  direction  upon  the 
rest  of  tne  world !  Here  is  to  be  found  a  land  filled  with 
churches  and  institutions  of  learning,  which  are  the  surest 
evidences  of  the  virtue  and  intelligence  of  a  people  that 
are  to  be  found  among  the  works  of  men.  Are  we  to  be 
considered  egotistic  when  we  assert  a  fact  of  which  we 
may  well  be  proud — that  we  are  the  greatest  Church-going 
Nation  in  the  world?  The  American  people  have  been 
styled  by  a  French  writer  of  some  note  the  greatest  en- 
thusiasts in  matters  of  religion  in  all  Christendom,  a  title 
they  by  no  means  disdain  to  own.  Can  there  be  any  cause 
of  wonder  that  they  should  be  so  ardent  about  that  which 
they  too  well  know  is  the  basis  and  stay  of  their  repub- 
lican institutions?    They  have  not  been  endeavoring  to 


90  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

establish  this  democracy  without  learning  lessons  of  vital 
importance  to  them  from  the  history  of  their  more  unsuc- 
cessful predecessors.  This  Government  is  not  the  off- 
spring of  a  blind  conatns,  or  the  result  of  hasty  thought 
and  action  upon  the  part  of  its  founders;  but  is  the  work 
of  ages  and  great  minds  directed  by  an  unseen  Power. 
Is  it,  indeed,  a  subject  of  astonishment  that  the  founders 
of  this  Republic  should  have  discovered  the  defects  in  the 
systems  of  the  early  republics  that  rendered  them  so  short- 
lived, when  the  facts  have  been  so  faithfully  transmitted 
to  them  by  the  historian  of  former  and  later  times?  It 
would  certainly  be  saying  but  little  for  their  judgment 
and  common  sense  to  suppose  that  they  did  not  scrupu- 
lously and  carefully  compare  the  past  and  its  events  with 
present  indications.  They  in  their  deductions  saw  the 
utter  inefficiency  of  natural  religion  to  reform  men  and 
raise  society  to  its  pristine  condition.  Their  attention  was 
attracted  by  that  great  Luminary  in  the  moral  world,  that 
has  been  pouring  its  light  upon  the  understandings  of  men 
for  the  last  eighteen  centuries !  They  hailed  it  as  the  last 
and  only  hope  for  the  world's  salvation  from  the  shackles 
of  tyranny  and  despotism,  as  well  as  for  man's  salvation 
from  the  thralldom  of  sin.  Nor  has  it  proved  to  be  a 
mere  "ignis  fatuns"  to  its  followers,  but  an  enlivening  and 
conservative  principle.  To-day  Portugal  and  Spain  are 
reaping  the  reward  of  their  folly  in  banishing  the  light 
of  Christianity  from  their  midst  by  their  inhuman  perse- 
cutions of  those  who  were  its  most  ardent  supporters.  It 
is  a  law  that  holds  good  in  morals  as  well  as  in  physics, 
that  certain  causes  will  infallibly  produce  certain  effects, 
though  the  sequences  in  morals  may  not  follow  immedi- 
ately as  they  do  in  the  physical  world;  nevertheless  they 
most  assuredly  will  follow  sooner  or  later.  May  we  not 
observe  something  in  the  ineffectual  attempts  of  France — 
a  most  polished  and  intelligent  nation — at  establishing  a 
democratic  government,  that  too  plainly  declares  their 
destitution  of  some  great  cardinal  principle?  How  are 
we  to  account  for  the  fact  that  such  a  man  as  Louis  Na- 
poleon, decidedly  monarchical  in  his  views,  should  receive 


THE  MISSION  OF  AMERICA.  91 

the  enormous  majority  of  seven  million  of  votes  for  the 
highest  office  within  the  gift  of  that  people,  who  had  so 
lately  manifested  almost  unparalleled  zeal  and  activity  in 
freeing  their  country  of  the  last  remains  of  monarchy ! 
And  what  renders  it  still  more  remarkable  is,  that  the  re- 
publicans had  the  ascendency  and,  as  the  gazing  world 
thought,  were  about  to  consign  monarchy  to  a  dreamless 
grave;  but,  alas!  the  present  appearances  are  ominous  of 
a  signal  defeat.  Christian  America,  however,  thinks  not 
strange  of  their  ill-success  when  she  recollects  that  Chris- 
tianity must  of  necessity  precede  republicanism.  France 
is  not  yet  prepared  to  live  under  such  a  government  as 
she  has  been  contemplating.  The  means  they  have  been 
employing  are  not  adequate  to  the  end  proposed,  conse- 
quently the  result  has  not  been  reached.  The  truth  of  the 
declaration,  "Whatsoever  ye  sow  that  shall  ye  also  reap," 
is  as  immutable  as  the  Being  who  uttered  it !  The  seeds 
of  monarchy  and  infidelity  have  been  lavishly  sown  in 
their  social,  literary,  and  political  institutions,  and  they  are 
now  reaping  an  abundant  harvest  in  accordance  with  the 
promise.  It  is  to  be  sincerely  hoped  that  there  have  been 
of  late  some  of  the  precious  seed  of  Christianity  scattered 
here  and  there  among  that  people  that  will  be  multiplied 
and  preserved  till  the  period  when  they  shall  be  fully  pre- 
pared to  administer  and  enjoy  such  a  form  of  government. 
That  such  is  not  their  condition  at  present,  is  too  evident 
from  the  great  civil  strife  and  internal  feuds  that  con- 
tinually harass  them.  If  they  expect  the  same  results 
that  have  followed  our  efforts,  they  must  commence  where 
we  did  and  tenaciously  adhere  to  the  strict  principles  of 
justice  and  uncompromising  virtue.  Christianity  is  to 
fieedom  what  Gibraltar  is  to  those  inhabiting  it. 

But  the  scientific  and  literary  condition  of  our  beloved 
country  is  likefy  to  prove  highly  conducive  to  the  well- 
being  of  this  great  and  growing  Confederacy.  Are  not 
our  prospects  for  the  future  truly  flattering?  Already  our 
schools  and  universities  are  beginning  to  vie  with  the  first 
and  oldest  institutions  of  learning  in  Europe.  A  host  of 
men  are  annually  issuing  from  our  colleges  who  are  leav- 


92  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

ing  their  marks  in  the  world  of  letters  and  eloquence! 
How  rapidly  they  are  multiplying  in  our  midst!  The 
spirit  of  education  is  abroad,  and  is  taking  deep  root  in 
the  public  mind.  The  exclamation,  Educate  !  Educate  ! ! 
is  becoming  general.  Such,  too,  is  the  nature  of  our  sys- 
tem of  education,  that  the  poor  by  industry  and  economy 
are  enabled  to  enter  the  lists  with  the  rich  for  literary 
honors,  and  not  unfrequently  bear  away  the  palm  from 
their  more  highly  favored  competitors.  In  this  country 
the  way  to  political,  scientific,  and  literary  preferment 
is  not  through  the  channels  of  wealth  or  through  some 
favored  line  of  aristocracy  or  blood  royal;  but  more  fre- 
quently we  find  that  our  legislative  assemblies,  pulpits, 
and  institutions  of  learning  are  graced  with  men  from  the 
hovels  of  the  poor  and  the  humbler  walks  of  life.  And  the 
very  circumstance  that  they  had  to  struggle  and  toil  hard 
against  the  inconveniences  of  poverty  and  their  social 
condition,  has  been  the  means  of  qualifying  them  so  emi- 
nently for  the  responsibe  positions  they  hold  among  us; 
while  those  who  have  been  reared  in  the  lap  of  opulence 
and  indolence  are  known  for  nothing,  unless  it  be  for  little 
minds  encased  in  diminutive  bodies.  Ours  is  becoming 
as  emphatically  the  land  of  literary  labor,  as  it  has  been 
heretofore  styled  the  land  of  political  and  manual  toil. 
Labor,  mental  and  manual,  is  the  watchword  of  Amer- 
icans, and  most  satisfactorily  accounts  for  her  rapid  prog- 
ress and  unprecedented  success !  May  not  we  in  the 
future,  without  incurring  the  censure  of  being  dreamy, 
claim  as  high  a  niche  for  American  literature  in  the  tem- 
ple of  Learning  as  any  nation  can  boast?  Nay,  will  she 
not  reign  queen  of  the  ascendant?  For  her  then  we  claim 
it,  and  not  without  reason  and  sufficient  premises  for  the 
claim.  Not  only  is  our  peculiar  form  of  government  ad- 
mirably adapted  to  the  educational  interest,  but  we  have 
a  superabundance  of  means  to  carry  forward  the  great 
work  of  training  the  mind ;  and  last,  but  not  least,  we  have 
the  men  who  possess  the  energy  of  character  and  power 
of  intellect  to  achieve  ■  the  mighty  task !  This  is  not  a 
mere  assertion  or  empty  declamation  without  facts  to  sus- 


THE  MISSION  OF  AMERICA.  93 

tain  it,  as  the  short  history  of  our  educational  movements 
sufficiently  attests.  The  literary  taste  of  this  country  is 
mounting  its  shining  way  with  planetary  speed  to  its 
zenith  of  grandeur  and  sublimity !  Be  proud,  then,  of 
your  position  in  the  world's  literary  galaxy,  and  though 
young  nobly  emulate  the  higher  standard  reared  by  Eu- 
rope, and  only  higher  because  much  older  than  your  own. 
Nay,  be  second  to  none;  stop  not  short  of  the  very  apex 
of  Learning's  temple,  but  there  plant  your  colors  and  stand 
by  and  defend  them  with  the  weapon  education  has  fur- 
nished— truth,  omnipotent  truth  !  American  authors  are 
taking  their  stand  with  those  of  Europe,  while  their  num- 
bers are  multiplying  with  a  rapidity  heretofore  unknown 
in  the  annals  of  history.  May  great  prosperity  still  attend 
the  growing  literature  of  our  country,  and  preserve  it 
unadulterated  from  licentiousness,  infidelity,  and  the 
blighting  touch  of  atheism. 

Another  mighty  engine  in  the  cause  of  religion  and 
liberty  in  this  country  is  the  press.  What  a  flood  of  light 
and  knowledge  is  flowing  into  every  department  of  society 
through  this  channel,  dispelling  the  mists  of  ignorance  and 
superstition  that  have  so  long  been  darkening  the  mental 
world  and  arresting  the  progress  of  civilization  and  re- 
finement !  What  a  weapon  the  press  is  in  the  hands  of 
freemen !  It  is  equal  to  the  task  of  upturning  the  very 
foundations  of  society,  and  bringing  about  revolutions 
that  terrify  tyrants  and  pampered  aristocracies !  It  is 
becoming  the  great  arcanum  of  the  world's  thoughts,  by 
means  of  the  myriads  of  volumes  that  are  issuing  there- 
from. But  little  that  transpires  among  men  is  suffered 
to  pass  unnoticed;  a  faithful  record  of  each  circumstance 
of  importance  is  being  kept  in  its  order.  Can  even  a  mod- 
erate estimate  be  formed  of  what  has  been  lost  for  want 
of  a  knowledge  of  the  art  of  printing  in  the  primitive 
ages?  Who,  then,  will  undertake  the  task  of  computing 
the  value  to  future  generations  from  the  present  achieve- 
ments of  the  press?  Much,  indeed,  is  said  and  written 
in  this  country  concerning  the  great  freedom  of  the  press ; 
yet  it  should  not  be  forgotten  that  an  unlimited  license 


94  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

would  only  be  to  destroy  this  freedom  altogether.  The 
licentiousness  of  the  press  must  be  prohibited,  or  else 
political  and  religious  liberty  will  suffer  the  sad  conse- 
quences arising  from  the  perusal  of  the  corrupting  publi- 
cations that  will  be  thrown  upon  society  without  this  re- 
striction. But  may  we  never  behold  the  day  when  the 
press  shall  be  prohibited  from  publishing  those  works  that 
can  be  successfully  combated  by  reason  and  truth !  Truth 
has  nothing  to  fear  from  error,  so  long  as  she  can  meet  her 
in  the  broad  and  open  field  of  Reason,  but  will,  as  she  ever 
has  done,  come  off  victor  in  the  engagement.  Are  we  not, 
then,  to  consider  the  press  as  one  of  the  strong,  colossal 
pillars  that  is  to  support  this  massive  tabernacle  of  Free- 
dom? Its  relation  and  adaptation  to  the  rest  of  the  great 
machinery  must  be  evident  to  every  reflecting  mind.  May 
those  who  stand  at  the  head  of  this  important  department 
show  themselves  worthy  of  the  high  and  responsible  po- 
sition they  occupy  in  the  great  drama  of  human  liberty 
that  is  being  acted  before  the  gaze  of  the  down-trodden 
nations  of  the  world ! 

But  we  come  to  the  political  aspect  of  our  country, 
which  is  probably  a  much  more,  interesting  and  important 
feature  than  the  press  and  its  freedom.  We  grant  that 
one  could  not  well  exist  without  the  other,  their  connection 
being  of  the  utmost  importance  in  the  upbuilding  of  gov- 
ernments. How  broad  the  basis  and  liberal  are  the  prin- 
ciples upon  which  our  laws  are  established !  It  is  the  ex- 
tensive platform  of  substantial  equality — yes,  equality  of 
rights  and  not  of  condition,  as  some  interpret  it,  who 
have  more  zeal  and  enthusiasm  than  clearness  of  percep- 
tion. As  has  already  been  intimated,  the  principles  of 
Christianity  lie  at  the  foundation  of  our  civil  institutions 
and  laws.  A  Constitution  we  have,  looking  to  the  good 
and  happiness  of  the  governed,  designating  their  rights 
as  citizens  and  making  provision  for  the  protection  of 
those  rights,  also  pointing  out  their  duties  as  citizens  of 
the  body  politic;  in  a  word,  embracing  everything  neces- 
sary to  the  well-being  of  society  in  general,  as  well  as 
to  individual  man.     It  is  the  simplest  and  yet  the  most 


THE  MISSION  OF  AMERICA.  95 

perfect  Constitution  ever  framed  by  any  government. 
Where  were  ever  the  rights  of  property  so  securely 
guarded  as  under  our  Constitution;  where  the  marriage 
contract  so  highly  respected  and  shielded  as  here?  These 
rights  and  this  contract  are  absolutely  necessary  to  the 
existence  of  civil  society.  Were  they  entirely  disregarded, 
society  would  rapidly  deteriorate  and  an  extinction  of  the 
race  would  soon  be  the  result.  Neither  was  this  Consti- 
tution framed  to  meet  the  wants  of  one  State  merely,  but 
to  meet  the  necessities  of  an  entire  family  of  States,  unit- 
ing them  in  the  strong  bonds  of  fraternal  affection  and 
mutual  interest,  making  the  interest  of  one  the  interest  of 
all.  To  carry  out  the  provisions  of  this  memorable  docu- 
ment we  have  legislative,  judicial,  and  executive  depart- 
ments, in  which  the  highest  talent  of  the  Nation  may  de- 
velop itself,  and  thus  fully  meet  the  great  end  for  which 
the  benevolent  Creator  bestowed  it  upon  the  race.  While 
these  departments  of  our  Government  are  filled  with  men 
who  are  consulting  for  the  social,  civil,  and  temporal  weal 
of  their  country,  we  find  a  host  of  great  and  good  men  in- 
dustriously engaged  in  the  great  moral  department  of  the 
same  looking  to  the  religious  and  moral  interests  of  the 
entire  people.  What  harmony  we  behold  here  among  the 
various  parts,  each  working  for  the  interest  of  the  other, 
the  legislator  framing  laws  for  the  protection  of  men  in 
their  religious  privileges,  while  the  divine  is  laboring  to 
better  the  moral  condition  of  those  composing  the  Govern- 
ment, thereby  rendering  them  law-abiding  and  peace- 
loving  citizens.  And  to-day,  while  we  are  celebrating  the 
birthday  of  American  Independence,  thousands  of  little, 
smiling  Sunday-school  children  are  collected  together  to 
commemorate  the  acts  of  their  forefathers,  who  purchased 
for  them  the  religious  and  civil  freedom  they  thus  so  much 
enjoy !  And  what  a  happy  reflection  it  is  that  our  future 
rulers  are  to  be  men  who  have  been  taught  the  principles 
of  morality  and  religion  in  this  great  institution  of  the 
venerated  Raikes  !  Do  not  such  spectacles  as  these  augur  a 
brighter  day  in  the  future  for  heaven-favored  America 
than  has  ever  yet  dawned  upon  it?    What  more  lovely 


96  STORY  OF  MY  LIFB. 

sight  could  present  itself  to  the  view  of  intelligent  men, 
than  to  see  Liberty  and  Christianity  marching  side  by  side 
towards  the  goal  of  human  freedom !  The  world's  hope  is 
in  this  nursery  of  the  Church  !  Is  not  the  name  of  Robert 
Raikes  to  be  remembered  and  honored  as  one  of  the 
greatest  that  has  been  written  on  the  immortal  tablet  of 
earth's  great  and  good?  His  acts  are  worthy  to  be  cele- 
brated on  this  our  great  national  festival  by  every  Amer- 
ican !  His  name  shall  never  be  forgotten  while  the  proud 
bird  of  American  independence  soars  above  us  as  the 
sentinel  of  our  cherished  institutions !  Have  we  not  then 
as  a  Nation  the  strongest  evidences  that  could  be  possibly 
presented,  declaring  in  the  most  unmistakable  manner 
the  magnitude  of  our  obligations  and  the  imperious  neces- 
sity of  immediate  and  unceasing  activity  in  discharging 
these  obligations? 

If  the  view  we  have  taken  of  our  history  and  the  cir- 
cumstances with  which  we  are  at  present  surrounded  be 
correct — which  is  a  view  we  think  can  not  be  avoided 
when  dispassionately  considered — does  it  not  certainly  ap- 
pear that  there  is  a  most  important  mission  for  us  as  a 
people  to  fulfill?  As  the  means  are  unlimited,  we  would 
infer  that  the  end  to  be  attained  by  those  means  must  be 
similar  in  its  character.  The  Author  of  man's  being  has 
not  only  shown  by  the  light  of  natural  religion,  but  much 
more  clearly  by  a  Divine  revelation,  that  the  nations  of 
the  earth  may  and  ought  to  free  themselves  from  the 
chains  of  despotism  and  tyranny.  The  free  and  enlight- 
ened of  the  earth  are  to  let  their  light  shine  and  penetrate 
the  darkest  retreats  of  the  despotisms  of  the  Old  World, 
and  thus  dispel  the  gloom  that  has  so  long  enshrouded 
them.  Should  not  this  mighty  Nation  take  the  lead  in 
the  world's  political  salvation?  Are  we  not  looked  up  to 
by  the  nations  of  the  earth  as  an  example  of  what  Chris- 
tianity can  do  for  those  who  would  be  free  ?  Arise  then, 
my  countrymen,  and  equip  yourselves  for  bold  and  ener- 
getic action ! 

But  this  mission  can  never  be  successfully  discharged 
without  individual  effort  and  untiring  activity.    The  only 


THE  MISSION  OF  AMERICA.  97 

successful  way  to  impress  upon  society  the  importance  of 
discharging  their  obligations,  is  to  force  the  truth  home 
upon  the  individuals  composing  that  society  or  govern- 
ment. How  comparatively  small  is  the  number  of  those 
who  really  take  an  abiding  interest  or  active  part  in  the 
great  and  leading  enterprises  of  the  day  for  the  advance- 
ment of  society !  It  is  a  lamentable  truth,  and  one  to 
which  this  Nation  should  awake,  that  the  great  and  lead- 
ing movements  in  the  literary,  scientific,  and  legal  depart- 
ments of  society  are  the  emanations  of  a  few  great  intel- 
lects !  This  will  account  to  some  extent  for  the  world's 
slow  progress  heretofore.  The  harvest  truly  is  great;  but 
how  few  are  the  laborers !  We  are  aware  that  the  system 
of  the  division  of  labor  has  been  largely  written  and 
spoken  about  during  the  present  century;  yet  the  masses 
laboring  in  those  various  departments  have  not  been  di- 
recting their  efforts  strictly  to  the  important  end  to  be 
gained,  but  have  suffered  sinister  motives  to  draw  off  their 
attention  from  the  general  good  to  that  of  mere  personal 
emolument.  Should  not  every  citizen  of  this  far-reaching 
Commonwealth  sedulously  endeavor  to  learn  his  respective 
sphere  of  action,  and  then  labor  for  the  general  good  of 
society?  "Individual  sacrifice"  says  an  eminent  orator, 
"is  universal  strength."  What  improvement  would  we 
behold  did  every  individual  use  his  utmost  endeavors  to 
contribute  something  and  lay  it  upon  the  common  altar ! 
Let  us  seriously  ask  ourselves  the  question  to-day,  Can 
there  be  a  nobler  altar  than  that  of  our  country  ? — for  our 
country's  altar  is  but  the  altar  of  our  God;  and  if  not, 
why  should  we  not,  on  this  the  seventy-sixth  year  of  our 
national  independence,  lay  ourselves  as  sacrifices  upon  it, 
and  vow  to  that  Being  who  has  so  tenderly  regarded  and 
taken  care  of  us  as  a  Nation  that  we  will  ever  be  true  to 
its  highest  interests,  and  hand  it  down  to  coming  gener- 
ations as  Heaven's  best  gift  to  man !  But  shall  it  not  be 
greatly  enlarged  and  beautified  before  we  transmit  it  to 
them?  Let  monumental  pile  and  pillar  rise  heavenward 
in  memory  of  our  honored  dead  that  will  defy  the  corrod- 
ing tooth  of  time.  And  upon  them  let  our  eagle  perch 
7 


98  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

when  weary,  and  be  the  first  to  greet  the  king  of  day 
as  he  mounts  the  eastern  sky,  and  be  the  last  to  bid  him 
adieu  as  he  descends  to  his  western  home !    Yes, — 

"Now  rest  thee,  Eagle,  from  thy  fancy  flight, 

And  hovering  o'er  the  capitolian  dome 
Outspread  thy  brooding  pinions  with  delight, 

For  ages  long  and  brilliant  yet  to  come ; 

While  ending  thus  my  unpretending  tome, 
One  wish,  one  fervent  prayer  to  Heaven  aspires ; 

Forever  spread  thy  wings  o'er  Freedom's  home; 
Forever,  while  gazing  world  admires, 
Shout  o'er  thy  country's  weal,  amid  thy  starry  fires." 

Let  us  then  break  forth  in  the  language  of  our  own 
Franklin,  and  exclaim,  "Where  liberty  dwells  there  is 
my  country!"  Not  only  would  we  dwell  here;  but  here 
would  we  die  and  be  buried,  and  rest  with  the  martyrs  of 
Freedom,  and  with  them  have  a  resurrection  when  all 
human  governments  shall  have  ceased  to  exist. 


MORAL  EFFORT. 

An  Oration  at  Graduation,  1852. 

Man's  true  sphere  is  action.  He  is  a  triune  being 
made  up  of  physical,  intellectual,  and  moral  natures.  Such 
is  the  relation  subsisting  between  these,  that  if  one  lies 
inactive  the  others  receive  a  corresponding  damage. 

Consult  the  history  of  the  past,  and  tell  us  what  real 
good  the  world  has  derived  from  the  labors  of  those  who 
have  exclusively  devoted  themselves  to  wrestling  and  box- 
ing in  the  Olympic  games  and  athletic  schools  in  which 
they  acquired  for  themselves  a  fame  for  brute  force.  Who 
envies  the  renown  that  a  Hercules  or  Milo  gained  for 
themselves  by  their  supposed  physical  powers,  while  no 
act  of  true  virtue  or  benevolence  marked  their  entire  lives? 
What  was  there  in  the  character  of  the  Macedonian  con- 
queror, or  in  the  most  ambitious  of  the  Julian  family,  or 
in  the  exile  of  St.  Helena,  except  their  cultivated  minds 


MORAL  EFFORT.  99 

that  challenges  for  a  moment  your  admiration?  And 
what  are  cultivated  intellects  when  employed  to  degrade 
the  noblest  powers  of  man's  nature  but  so  many  curses 
to  the  world?  Do  the  slaughters  at  Arbela  and  Issus,  or 
Alexander's  disgraceful  death  at  Babylon  call  forth  your 
moral  approval?  Do  Caesar's  encounters  on  the  plains  of 
Pharsalia  and  at  Munda,  or  his  crossing  the  Rubicon 
beyond  which  he  had  no  right  to  go,  raise  him  in  your  esti- 
mation as  a  moral  being?  Do  not  the  unbridled  ambition 
and  inhuman  treatment  of  the  Corsican  general  towards 
his  soldiers  disqualify  him  for  a  place  in  your  admiration 
and  regards?  Posterity  will  surely  measure  out  to  all 
such  men  the  praises  due  to  such  exploits.  Let  every  act 
of  the  lives  of  those  conquerors  be  thrown  into  one  scale 
of  a  just  balance,  and  the  single  act  of  integrity  of  Regu- 
lus,  the  Carthaginian  captive,  placed  in  the  other;  it  will 
far  outweigh  them  all !  When  their  names  and  deeds  shall 
have  been  forgotten,  the  name  of  that  Roman  consul  will 
be  remembered  and  cherished  by  the  good  and  truly  great 
of  earth. 

But  in  point  of  intellectual  excellence,  whose  character 
and  reputation  do  you  most  admire?  Are  they  those  of 
Hobbes,  Hume,  Voltaire,  Paine,  and  Byron?  Or  do 
you  not  rather  take  a  loftier  flight,  and  suffer  your 
mind  to  dwell  upon  the  greatness  of  such  men  as  Paul, 
Luther,  Zwingli,  Wesley,  Howard,  and  Wilberforce? 
Moral  effort  was  the  distinguishing  characteristic  in  their 
lives,  and  their  intellectual  powers  were  carried  forward 
to  the  highest  state  of  development  and  activity.  But 
there  is  a  moral  sublimity  connected  with  their  acts  that 
excites  in  us  the  deepest  emotions  of  moral  approval,  and 
even  forces  the  most  abandoned  in  their  more  considerate 
moments  to  admire  and  reverence. 

Nothing  but  moral  effort  can  dispel  the  more  than 
Egyptian  darkness  that  lingers  around  the  minds  of  the 
bestialized  heathen,  and  exterminate  from  this  fair  abode 
of  man  the  tyranny  and  slavery  under  which  so  many  of 
the  nations  of  the  earth  are  at  present  laboring  and  groan- 
ing.    The  Macedonian  cry  that  is  wafted  to  our  shores 


ioo  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

at  nearly  every  breeze  will  surely  not  be  disregarded  by 
the  lover  of  his  race.  A  missionary  ship  freighted  with 
Bibles  and  God's  messengers  shall  be  sent  to  them  upon 
the  next  favoring  gale. 

And  where  are  we  to  find  the  men  who  are  willing  to 
sacrifice  the  endearments  of  home,  of  friends,  and  the 
sweets  of  civilization  to  go  to  heathen  lands  to  elevate  the 
degraded  and  proclaim  to  them  the  glad  news  of  the 
world's  great  Deliverer  ?  Not  among  atheists  and  infidels ; 
not  among  the  irreligious  part  of  community;  not  among 
political  aspirants  and  demagogues,  whose  philanthropy  is 
circumscribed  to  the  narrow  bounds  of  self-aggrandize- 
ment and  self-preferment;  nor  yet  among  those  whose  all- 
absorbing  concern  is  to  acquire  the  honors  of  this  world 
and  to  amass  its  wealth.  Where,  then,  are  we  to  look  for 
them?  Hark!  a  cry  comes  from  the  Christian  Church, 
"Here  am  I ;  send  me !"  Again  I  hear  that  cry,  and  still 
again  with  simultaneous  voice  more  than  a  thousand  re- 
peat the  thrilling  sentence,  "Here  am  I ;  send  me."  Thank 
Heaven,  there  is  no  mean  number  who  are  willing  to 
forego  the  charms  of  wealth,  of  ease  and  worldly  honors, 
for  the  sake  of  their  unfortunate  brethren  of  other  lands 
and  tongues  !  The  spirit  of  a  Martyn  and  a  Cox  still  lives 
in  many  a  noble  breast,  and  vibrates  to  the  call  of  human 
misery.  Not  satisfied  with  the  sacrifices  of  wealth,  of 
home,  of  liberty,  and  cherished  institutions,  they  are  will- 
ing to  spend  years  of  confinement  and  intellectual  exertion 
to  qualify  themselves  for  the  arduous  undertaking!  Such 
is  not  the  course  pursued  by  men  who  are  desirous  of 
gaining  the  applause  of  the  populace,  or  who  strive  for 
personal  ease  and  emolument. 

On  the  day  of  final  retribution,  whose  position  would 
you  most  envy — if  we  may  be  allowed  to  use  this  term — 
the  missionary's  or  the  zealless,  half-hearted  philanthropist 
whose  benevolence  and  moral  effort  have  been  circum- 
scribed too  much  by  earthly  interests  and  considerations? 
If  there  are  degrees  of  happiness  and  glory  in  that  home 
of  the  blest  and  good,  certainly  the  missionary  may  lay 
claim  to  the  highest  seat  of  honor  and  bliss  in  that  City 


HONOLULU  CORRESPONDENCE.  101 

of  Jasper  and  Pearl,  whose  streets  are  paved  with  bur- 
nished gold !  Let  me  when  Gabriel's  shrill  clarion  shall 
summon  the  slumbering  millions  from  the  four  winds 
come  up  with  the  company  of  missionaries  from  the  islands 
of  the  Main,  or  from  Asia,  or  from  the  Pacific  Coast. 
This  will  be  enough  glory  and  honor  for  one  poor  mortal ! 
Let  the  ambitious  and  lovers  of  this  world's  fame  drink 
in  the  flatteries  and  fulsome  adulations  of  men  till  they 
sicken;  but  grant  me  the  peace  and  joy  of  a  life  spent  in 
doing  good  and  Heaven's  smiles,  and  I  ask  no  more. 


HONOLULU  CORRESPONDENCE,  1857. 

A  TRIP   TO    HAWAII. 

Since;  our  last  date  it  has  been  our  privilege  to  visit 
the  island  of  Hawaii.  This  is  the  most  southeasterly  of 
the  group.  In  size  and  interest  it  outstrips  all  the  rest. 
It  is  the  lion  of  these  islands,  and  we  may  say  of  the  world, 
in  one  sense.  It  has  some  of  the  highest  mountains,  one 
of  the  finest  valleys,  and  the  largest  volcano  in  the  world. 
But  more  of  these  again. 

We  left  the  harbor  of  Honolulu  May  28th,  on  the 
schooner  Lihililo,  in  company  with  Revs.  Coan  and  Ly- 
man, Shipman  of  Kau,  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Bingham,  mission- 
aries, who  are  soon  to  go  to  Mikronesia,  and  a  few  other 
of  our  townsmen.  A  pleasant  company  this,  abating  the 
hundred  natives,  more  or  less,  strewed  all  over  the  deck 
with  their  calabashes  of  poi,  dogs,  etc.  Though  we  had 
the  most  commodious  and  comfortable  of  all  the  poi  clip- 
pers, of  which  we  boast  quite  a  number,  still  this  inter- 
island  travel  is  by  no  means  agreeable.  Our  comfortable 
vessel  and  pleasant  company  were  not  sufficient  security 
against  seasickness.  Neptune  drew  more  than  one  reluc- 
tant Europe  and  New  York  from  us.  The  variety  in  this 
inter-island  travel  is  fresh  breezes,  quite  like  gales ;  heavy 
chopped  seas,  interrupted  with  protracted  calms,  that  are 
no  kind  of  relief  to  seasickness.  The  second  day  out  we 
made  the  harbor  of  Kawaihae. 


102  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

Our  stay  at  this  point  was  short.  It  presents  anything 
but  an  attractive  appearance  from  the  water.  There  are 
at  present  but  four  or  five  houses,  and  these  trading 
houses.  The  country  around  for  miles  looks  wretchedly 
sterile.  There  is  scarcely  a  spear  of  vegetation  to  be 
seen  for  miles  inland.  Rocks  and  red  soil  abound.  The 
eye  is  relieved  by  belts  of  grass,  shrubs,  and  woods  upon 
the  mountain  slopes.  From  this  point  we  had  a  good  view 
of  Mauna  Kea  and  Mauna  L,oa.  These  are  snow-capped 
for  the  greater  part  of  the  year.  It  was  here  that  the  brig 
Thaddeus  landed  the  first  missionaries  to  these  islands, 
the  Revs.  Mr.  Bingham  and  Thurston.  This  was  thirty- 
seven  years  ago.  The  former  was  shortly  after  this 
assigned  to  Honolulu,  where  he  labored  for  years,  and 
then  returned  to  the  United  States;  the  latter  is  on  the 
spot  till  this  hour  that  was  first  assigned  him.  Kawaihae 
is  further  notable  for  being  the  residence  of  old  Kame- 
hameh  I.  There  are  still  to  be  seen  at  this  place  the  re- 
mains of  an  old  heathen  temple  built  by  this  distinguished 
Hawaiian.  This  lies  four  square,  and  from  the  bay  looks 
as  though  it  might  be  three  or  four  hundred  feet 
in  length.  When  this  temple  was  commenced  it  is  said 
several  human  victims  were  sacrificed,  which  was  their 
custom  in  those  days. 

Some  four  of  us  had  intended  landing  at  this  place, 
but  as  we  could  not  supply  ourselves  with  horses  to  our 
minds  we  went  to  the  next  stopping-place,  which  is 
Kohala. 

We  landed  here  in  the  night,  and  had  some  twelve 
miles  to  travel  by  land  before  we  could  find  suitable  lodg- 
ings. We  were  only  able  to  procure  two  horses  between 
four  of  us.  One  of  our  number  being  a  lady,  one  horse 
had  to  serve  three  of  us.  We  alternated  in  riding.  Not 
being  able  to  get  a  lady's  saddle,  Mrs.  Bingham  was  com- 
pelled, of  necessity,  to  ride  a  la  Hawaii.  We  reached  Rev. 
Mr.  Bond's  station  about  four  o'clock  in  the  morning. 
Kohala  is  a  beautiful  district,  lying  on  the  northeast  shore 
of  the  island.  It  is  adapted  to  grazing.  We  spent  the 
Sabbath  with  Mr.  Bond,  attending  services  in  the  native 


HONOLULU  CORRESPONDENCE.  103 

church,  which  by  the  way  is  the  finest  church  edifice  we 
have  seen  among  the  native  churches.  Mr.  Bond  is  a 
stirring,  energetic  man,  much  devoted  to  his  work.  Rev. 
Mr.  Bingham  and  myself  were  requested  to  speak  to  the 
natives  through  an  interpreter.  Such  kind  treatment  as 
we  received  from  Mr.  Bond  has  not  often  been  our  priv- 
ilege. He  is  a  true  brother  and  Christian  gentleman. 
Being  greatly  refreshed  by  the  rest  of  the  Sabbath  and 
the  many  kindnesses  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Bond,  we  left  late 
on  Monday  morning  for  Waimea. 

This  place  is  distant  from  Kohala  some  twenty-five 
miles.  We  arrived  here  after  a  steady  ride  about  sunset. 
Waimea  is  a  native  village  and  mission  station.  Rev.  Mr. 
Lyon  is  the  pastor,  and  has  been  here  for  twenty-five 
years.  He  and  his  family  being  absent,  we  had  to  find 
quarters  somewhere  else.  I  think  the  name  W^aimea  is 
given  to  the  country  about,  as  well  as  to  the  village.  This 
is  a  strip  of  land  lying  between  Kohala  Mountain  and 
Mauna  Kea,  averaging  eight  or  ten  miles  in  width,  and 
some  thirty  miles  in  length,  stretching  from  sea  to  sea. 
This  region  for  the  most  part  appears  fertile.  The  staple 
of  this  district  are  potatoes,  sheep,  and  cattle.  Waimea, 
though  said  to  be  six  thousand  feet  above  the  level  of  the 
sea,  does  not  appear  to  be  more  than  one  thousand  feet. 
This  deceptive  appearance  doubtless  arises  from  the  tre- 
mendous height  of  the  mountains  in  the  immediate  vicin- 
ity. We  put  up  with  an  old  English  gentleman  by  the 
name  of  Sparkes,  who  is  engaged  in  the  sheep  busi- 
ness. A  person  of  favorable  dimensions  and  withal  ec- 
centric. 

There  is  a  cave  in  the  vicinity  of  Waimea  village,  the 
existence  of  which  we  did  not  learn  till  we  reached  Hilo. 
In  this  are  to  be  found  human  bodies  in  a  preserved  state, 
somewhat  like  the  mummies  of  Egypt.  These  bodies, 
though  entire,  are  much  shriveled.  Whether  the  natives 
in  former  times  had  any  method  of  preserving  their  dead, 
or  whether  it  is  owing  to  the  state  of  the  atmosphere  in 
this  cave,  we  have  no  certain  means  of  knowing.  These 
bodies,  however,  have  been  there  for  a  long  time,  probably 


104  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

centuries.  A  gentleman  who  explored  this  cave  told  me 
that  some  one  who  had  preceded  him  had  put  a  tobacco- 
pipe  in  the  mouth  of  one  of  these  mummies,  to  lead  some 
traveler  fond  of  antiquities  into  the  great  mistake  of  call- 
ing smoking  an  ancient  practice  with  these  islanders.  But 
a  little  examination  shows  that  the  style  of  the  pipe  is 
quite  modern.  We  were  strongly  led  to  suspect,  from  the 
facetiousness  of  the  above-named  gentleman,  and  his  great 
fondness  for  the  pipe,  that  this  whole  mummy-pipe  ar- 
rangement was  original  with  him.  This,  however,  is  not 
material.  Reader,  if  you  ever  go  to  Waimea,  visit  the 
mummies,  pipe  or  no  pipe.  Do  n't  wait  for  Father  Sparkes 
to  inform  you  that  there  is  such  a  cave,  for  he  may  be 
shearing  sheep,  as  he  was  when  we  were  there.  Sheep 
are  his  hobby;  and  ascending  lofty  mountains  is  a  passion 
with  Mr.  Bingham,  my  companion  in  travel.  So  we  will 
introduce  the  reader  to  Mauna  Kea. 

As  intimated,  my  fellow-traveler,  who,  being  somewhat 
of  an  adventurer,  expressed  a  strong  desire  to  ascend  this 
mountain,  whose  snow-white  summit  seemed  not  more 
than  a  mile  distant  from  us,  though  many  miles.  Two 
men  and  three  horses  made  up  our  arrangements  for  trans- 
porting us,  our  provisions,  and  luggage.  About  2  o'clock 
P.  M.  we  set  out  for  the  mountain.  We  had  no  guide, 
depending  wholly  upon  our  own  judgment  in  the  matter. 
After  reaching  the  foo.t-hills  we  passed  through  a  thicket 
of  chapparal,  of  some  two  or  three  miles  in  width. 
Through  this  there  was  nothing  but  a  narrow  cattle  trail, 
and  this  running  out  every  now  and  then.  We  got  through 
this  by  half  an  hour  sun.  We  were  now  in  broad  savan- 
nas, covered  with  rank  grass.  The  ascent  being  quite 
gradual,  we  made  the  best  of  our  road  and  time.  We  were 
occasionally  greeted  by  small  herds  of  wild  cattle,  with 
which  this  mountain  abounds.  They  having  been  chased 
much  of  late,  and  we  being  no  vaqueras,  and  not  know- 
ing whether  our  horses  were  accustomed  to  wild  cattle, 
rode  in  some  fear.  The  dense  bank  of  cloud  or  fog  that 
generally  sets  on  this  mountain  side  kept  moving  rapidly 
toward  us,  till  we  were  soon  enveloped  in  it.     A  heavy 


HONOLULU  CORRESPONDENCE.  105 

mist,  amounting  almost  to  rain,  fell  till  it  ran  off  our  um- 
brellas in  a  stream.  We  traveled  on  till  between  8  and  9 
o'clock  P.  M.,  hoping  to  find  some  cave  or  shelter  for  the 
night.  The  mist  was  so  dense  that  we  could  see  but  a  rod 
or  two  in  any  direction.  The  moon  finally  broke  through  the 
mist,  telling  us  that  we  had  nearly  passed  through  the  belt 
of  fog.  We  saw  a  solitary  tree  a  short  distance  before  us, 
which  proved  to  have  extensive  branches  and  fine  foliage, 
affording  tolerable  shelter.  Being  wet,  hungry,  and  weary, 
we  all,  with  one  consent,  stopped  here  for  the  night.  We 
found  good  grazing  for  our  horses.  We  unsaddled  and 
staked  them  out.  There  being  no  wood  in  a  combustible 
state,  we  made  out  to  make  a  cup  of  tea  by  a  small  spirit 
lamp.  After  eating  a  bite  we  had  religious  devotions, 
and  laid  us  down  to  sleep.  We  were  reminded  frequently 
through  the  night  that  we  were  in  a  higher  latitude  than 
any  of  us  had  experienced  for  some  time.  To  add  to  our 
discomfort  several  wild  bulls  tried  their  lungs  most  vocif- 
erously in  the  immediate  vicinity.  So,  between  Boreas 
and  the  bulls,  we  were  not  much  refreshed  in  the  morning. 
There  being  a  general  shivering  among  men  and  horses, 
I  proposed  an  early  start,  thinking  up-hill  exercise  might 
raise  the  thermometer  somewhat.  So  we  set  out  a  few 
minutes  after  4  o'clock  A.  M.  Our  upward  movement 
had  the  desired  result.  In  two  hours'  time  we  had  got 
fairly  into  the  woods.  About  8  o'clock  we  stopped  and 
breakfasted.  These  woods  were  really  refreshing.  Our 
ears  were  frequently  saluted  with  the  sudden  snort  of  wild 
hogs,  started  from  their  nest,  the  shrill  bellowing  of  wild 
bulls  on  neighboring  hills,  and  the  caroling  of  birds. 
Surely  this  was  more  homelike  than  anything  we  had  seen 
or  heard  for  years.  These  sounds  were  inharmoniously 
harmonious.  We  never  before  understood  so  well  how  it 
was  that  a  discord  in  music  sometimes  adds  to  the  har- 
mony. All  nature  conspired  to  please  us,  ear  and  eye. 
The  mountain  being  nearly  free  from  fog  and  cloud  we 
had  a  fine  view  of  the  ocean,  the  landscape  beneath,  and 
the  neighboring  mountains,  Kohala,  Hualalai,  and  Mauna 
Loa,  stood  up  by  our  side  in  grand  proportions.     But 


106  STORY  OF  MY  LIFB. 

Mauna  Loa !  Such  a  mountain !  It  is,  as  its  name  im- 
ports, a  long  or  round  mountain.  It  contrasts  finely  with 
its  sisters,  Hualalai  and  Mauna  Kea.  The  regularity  of 
its  conformation  is  beautiful !  Its  huge  dome  inspires 
one  with  a  sense  of  grandeur  and  sublimity  that  can  not 
well  be  described  by  the  pen.  From  this  standpoint  we 
had  a  view  of  the  new  outbreak,  or  eruption,  that  has 
caused  much  remark  of  late  in  the  public  print.  This  ap- 
parently is  about  midway  up  Mauna  Loa.  Nothing  could 
be  observed  but  some  smoke  arising.  The  distance  was  too 
great  to  detect  anything  like  a  crater  with  the  naked  eye. 
Having  feasted  our  eyes  on  the  sublime  wonders  of  cre- 
ation as  they  presented  themselves  from  this  point  of  ob- 
servation, we  mounted  our  horses  and  pressed  on  for  the 
summit  of  Mauna  Kea,  which  loomed  up  before  us  in  wild 
grandeur,  not  apparently  farther  from  us  than  some  mus- 
cular arm  could  throw  a  stone. 

In  a  few  minutes  we  were  beyond  the  bound  of  all 
vegetation,  the  increasing  difficulties  of  ascent  warning 
us  the  while  that  we  were  nearing  the  base  of  some  of  the 
tremendous  peaks  that  stud  the  summit  of  this  gray  old 
mountain.  Our  path  was  over  lava  and  scoria.  Old  Sol 
was  unusually  lavish  of  his  light  and  heat  this  day.  The 
lava  and  scoria  make  fine  reflectors  of  his  rays.  By  10 
o'clock  we  had  traveled  as  far  with  our  horses  as  was 
practicable  or  safe.  We  were  now  evidently  at  the  real 
base  of  some  of  the  first  peaks  of  Mauna  Kea.  We  dis- 
mounted (which,  by  the  way  we  did  frequently  during 
the  morning),  relieved  our  horses  of  their  furniture; 
staked  them  out  upon  the  climpcrs,  as  they  are  called  here. 
We  left  our  white  man  Andrew  in  charge  of  the  animals 
and  stuff.  Andrew,  being  barefoot,  had  no  inclination  to 
ascend  higher,  Sammy  (our  native  boy),  thought  he  must 
go  with  us.  We  lost  no  time.  Mr.  Bingham  remarked 
to  Andrew  that  he  might  look  for  us  back  by  noon.  I  re- 
plied, "You  had  better  say  i  o'clock  P.  M."  One  o'clock 
was  agreed  upon.  One  peak  lifted  its  head  far  above  its 
four  or  five  neighbors.  We  made  sure  it  was  the  summit. 
Apparently  it  was  between  two  and  three  thousand  feet 


HONOLULU  CORRESPONDENCE.  107 

above  us ;  but  the  road  leading  to  it  considerably  increased 
the  distance.  Our  native  boy  Sammy  fell  behind  before 
we  had  proceeded  far,  and  concluded  to  stop  when  he 
should  have  reached  a  small  patch  of  snow  some  quarter 
of  a  mile  off,  and  then  return  to  the  horses.  This  was  the 
first  time  he  ever  had  the  privilege  of  putting  his  hands 
into  snow;  and  he  remarked  that  it  was  the  last  time  he 
desired  to.  He  thought  better  of  the  tropical  climate  of 
his  native  Kau,  than  this  to  him  hyperborean  region. 

But  we  hastened  on  to  the  summit — our  ambition, 
being  bounded  only  by  the  summit  of  this  Mont  Blanc 
of  the  Pacific.  Our  stages  over  the  rugged  lava  and  grit- 
ting and  giving  scoria  were  short  and  exceedingly  ener- 
vating. The  rapidity  of  our  pulse,  the  beating  of  the  heart, 
and  the  thunderings  of  our  eardrums  warned  us  that  we 
were  some  thirteen  thousand  feet  above  the  sea.  A  few 
rods  were  sufficient  to  provoke  a  blow,  or  rest.  But  our 
hopes  of  planting  our  feet  upon  the  apex  of  the  highest 
mountain  in  the  Pacific  hastened  us  nearly  beyond  our 
strength.  But,  kind  reader,  we  need  not  inform  you  that 
our  courage  sunk  several  degrees  in  the  scale  when  we 
gained  this  peak,  and  saw  "Alps  on  Alps  arise"  in  the  dis- 
tance !  Fields  of  snow,  averaging  about  eight  inches  in 
depth,  lay  between  us  and  the  bases  of  the  peaks  beyond. 
It  was  then  12  o'clock.  "This  does  not  look  much  like 
getting  back  to  the  men  and  horses  at  noon,"  I  replied  to 
Bingham,  my  companion.  "No,"  he  replied,  "if  we  think 
of  going  to  the  top  of  yon  peak !"  We  seated  ourselves 
upon  a  flat  rock  of  lava  on  the  margin  of  a  snow  bank, 
and  took  our  lunch  and  quenched  our  raging  thirst  with 
snow,  cold  snow,  sir !  We  thanked  God  for  snow,  after 
being  on  a  short  allowance  of  water  from  the  time  we  set 
out  on  this  trip. 

While  sitting  here  my  attention  was  called  to  the  firma- 
ment above.  Though  the  sun  was  shining  in  meridian 
splendor,  yet  the  sky  had  lost  its  blue,  and  put  on  almost 
a  pitch  black.  I  called  the  attention  of  my  friend  Bingham 
to  this  singular  phenomenon.  It  struck  him  as  strange 
also.     I  asked  him  if  it  could  be  an  illusion,  or  was  it 


108  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

caused  by  the  glare  of  the  sun  from  the  snow  upon  our 
eyes?  We  agreed  that  it  could  be  neither  of  these  after 
looking  several  times.  It  was  not  unlike  going  into  a  room 
that  is  partially  lighted  after -looking  upon  the  snow  for  a 
long  time,  and  the  pupil  of  the  eye  is  contracted  to  its 
utmost  limit.  The  only  rational  conclusion  we  could  come 
to  was,  that  we  were  looking  through  a  much  rarer 
medium  than  was  our  custom. 

But  a  man  who  has  a  passion  for  ascending  high  moun- 
tains and  had  been  on  the  Alps,  as  my  companion  Bingham 
had  been  only  a  year  or  two  ago,  did  not  feel  like  giving 
up  the  idea  of  standing  on  the  summit  of  the  same  peak 
that  his  father  had  done  while  a  missionary  in  these 
islands.  Having  no  disposition  to  be  outdone  myself,  I 
gave  a  banter  to  proceed.  We  urged  our  way  on  for  what 
appeared  to  us  the  highest  of  some  five  peaks.  Having 
reached  and  ascended  it,  we  were  convinced  that  two  more 
ahead  of  us  were  two  or  three  hundred  feet  higher.  Hav- 
ing a  good  view  from  the  last  named  peak,  we  felt  well 
assured  that  there  were  none  higher  than  the  two  just 
mentioned.  We  descended  and  consulted  as  to  what 
should  be  done.  It  was  now  3  o'clock,  and  we  had  a  long 
road  to  travel  back  to  the  men  and  horses.  As  we  had 
staid  already  two  hours  beyond  our  time,  and  the  men  and 
animals  were  suffering  for  want  of  water  and  food,  and 
we  on  our  last  legs,  we  concluded  that  it  was  best,  upon 
the  whole,  to  return  and  get  down  to  vegetation  to  give 
our  horses  something  to  eat.  We  can  assure  you  that  it 
went  terribly  against  the  grain  to  give  up  so;  but  we  con- 
soled ourselves  that  it  was  only  three  hundred  feet  higher 
than  we  were,  and  that  we  could  have  made  that  in  one 
hour  more.  Here  we  were  nearly  fourteen  thousand  feet 
in  the  air,  and  flattered  ourselves  that  our  pluck  was  pretty 
good,  seeing  that  we  neither  bled  at  the  nose,  ears,  or 
mouth,  all  of  which  frequently  happen  to  aspirants  for 
these  lofty  honors. 

Our  view  from  the  summit  was  quite  different  from 
that  in  the  morning.  There  was  a  vast  sea  of  fleecy  cloud 
beneath  us,  stretching  out  as  far  as  the  eye  could  carry  us. 


HONOLULU  CORRESPONDENCE.  109 

These  clouds  were  very  irregular,  and  resembled  a  vast 
plain  filled  with  hills.  The  effect  of  the  bright  sun  on 
these  clouds  was  grander  than  anything  of  the  kind  we 
had  ever  beheld.  Mauna  Loa  and  Hallia  Kela — the  high- 
est mountain  of  the  Island  of  Maui,  were  completely 
bathed  in  this  sea  of  cloud,  save  a  small  portion  of  their 
summits.  They  appeared  like  small  islands  resting  upon 
the  bosom  of  the  mighty  deep  that  was  lashed  into  a  foam 
by  some  Euroclidon.  This  scene  can  never  be  erased  from 
our  memory.  We  never  had  such  ideas  of  the  power,  wis- 
dom, and  goodness  of  God  in  creation  as  at  this  time. 

Mauna  Kea  has  nine  peaks  and  two  or  three  extinct 
craters.  These  peaks  are  of  different  configurations. 
Some  are  conical,  some  irregular  oval.  No  one  can  have 
any  conception  of  the  top  of  this  wonderful  mountain  in 
viewing  it  from  the  base  or  in  the  distance.  This  moun- 
tain has  been  seen  one  hundred  miles  at  sea.  This  will 
give  some  idea  of  its  height. 

Our  descent  was  much  more  rapid  than  our  ascent. 
On  our  return  we  lost  our  trail  after  reaching  the  woods, 
owing  to  the  heavy  mists  that  closed  us  round.  Our  men, 
who  were  tired  and  hungry,  teased  us  every  few  minutes 
to  stop  and  camp  for  the  night;  but  we  could  not  think  it 
right  to  do  so  till  we  found  good  pasturage  for  our  ani- 
mals. So  we  traveled  till  between  8  and  9  o'clock  at  night 
in  the  woods,  not  knowing  where  we  were.  We  finally 
came  to  a  place  that  we  thought  would  answer  our  pur- 
pose. It  proved  to  be  an  admirable  spot.  The  grass  and 
the  shelter  were  good,  and  we  were  more  fortunate  in  find- 
ing wood  to  make  a  fire  than  on  the  previous  night. 
There  were  several  dead  trees  in  the  vicinity,  of  which 
our  men  gathered  sufficient  to  last  us  through  the  night. 
We  made  beds  of  our  saddle  blankets,  pillows  of  our  sad- 
dles, and  stretched  ourselves  out  with  our  feet  to  the  fire, 
and  had  it  not  been  for  a  severe  pain  in  our  heads  and  ears 
we  should  have  slept  most  sweetly.  Mr.  Bingham  slept  but 
little  from  severe  pain  in  the  eyes.  Though  my  rest  was 
broken,  I  slept  some.  We  arose  at  the  peep  of  day,  and 
made  preparations  to  proceed  on  our  journey.    The  little 


no  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

songsters  saluted  us  with  charming  music,  and  provoked 
us  to  unite  with  them  in  praise  to  our  great  Creator. 

But  Mr.  Bingham  and  myself  were  two  hard-looking 
spectacles !  Each  was  unconscious  how  badly  the  other 
looked  till  informed  of  it.  Such  eyes,  mouths,  and  faces  as 
we  had !  The  eyes  were  most  completely  bloodshot,  the 
lips  parched  and  sore,  and  the  face  almost  as  red  as  a 
cherry.  They  could  not  have  been  more  completely  blis- 
tered had  we  applied  strong  mustard  drafts  to  them.  The 
center  of  gravity  inclining  us  strongly  down  the  moun- 
tain slopes,  we  felt  no  disposition  to  hold  back  much.  The 
breezes  that  fanned  our  fevered  cheeks  and  heads  felt  most 
agreeable,  but  did  not  lessen  the  inflammation  any.  It  was 
only  preparing  us  for  sleepless  nights  to  come.  We  ar- 
rived at  old  Father  Sparkes'  about  10  o'clock  A.  M.,  right 
glad  to  get  back. 

As  I  had  feared,  so  my  apprehensions  were  realized, 
sleepless  nights  followed.  It  was  not  many  days  till  we 
pealed  off  thoroughly,  presenting  a  somewhat  scaly  ap- 
pearance in  the  meantime.  What  we  saw,  friendly  reader, 
more  than  compensated  us  for  all  we  suffered.  Could  it 
not  be  ascended  without  such  consequences?  Yet  it  is 
richly  worth  all  the  time,  expense,  and  pain  we  endured. 
Should  any  who  read  this  sketch  be  inclined  to  ascend 
Mauna  Kea,  we  would  advise  them  to  provide  themselves 
goggles  and  take  veils.  In  this  way  you  can  have  all  the 
pleasure  without  the  pain.  We  shall  not  charge  you  any- 
thing for  the  suggestion,  though  it  cost  us  something. 
For  the  present  we  take  our  leave  of  the  reader. 

Volcano. 

This  is  evidently  one  of  the  foothills  of  Mauna  Loa. 
We  call  it  a  hill,  but  it  is  in  fact  a  mountain,  yet  it  looks 
like  a  hill  compared  with  Mauna  Loa  and  Mauna  Kea. 
I  believe  its  height  is  four  thousand  feet.  This  is  the 
largest  active  volcano  now  known — not  that  it  throws  out 
as  much  lava  as  some  others,  but  as  regards  its  crater. 
This  crater  at  present  has  three  rims,  or  a  crater  within 
a  crater,  showing  that  there  have  been  three  periods  of 
great  action.    The  first,  or  outer  rim,  is  about  six  miles 


HONOLULU  CORRESPONDENCE.  in 

in  diameter,  being  an  irregular  circle.  The  second  crater 
is  about  three  miles  in  diameter.  In  1840  the  innermost 
crater,  or  lake  of  lava,  was  a  half  mile  in  diameter;  now 
it  is  not  more  than  fifteen  by  twenty  rods.  The  action  in 
1840  was  much  greater  than  now.  Neither  history  nor 
tradition  gives  us  any  account  of  the  first  or  second  crater. 
But  there  is  its  history  legibly  written  in  the  rocks  and 
its  huge  perimeters.  There  is  no  mistaking  the  fact  of 
their  being  craters.  As  evidence  of  this  there  are  steam- 
holes  from  which  the  steam  issues  up  to  this  hour,  every 
here  and  there  in  the  oldest  of  these  craters,  though  it  is 
now  grown  up  in  many  places  with  trees  and  shrubs. 
The  second  crater  is  walled  in  by  high  bluffs  of  rock, 
averaging  five  hundred  or  six  hundred  feet.  This  is 
called  the  "Black  Ledge."  The  descent  to  and  the  ascent 
from  this  crater  is  somewhat  difficult,  and  eminently  cal- 
culated to  try  one's  wind.  This  crater  resembles  a  vast 
amphitheater.  The  flowing  of  the  lava  is  very  much  like 
what  we  have  alluded  to  in  the  late  lava  flow  from  Mauna 
Loa,  with  the  exception  that  this  is  on  a  level  and  that 
on  an  incline.  Many  of  the  same  irregularities  are  ob- 
served, caused  by  the  rapid  cooling  on  the  surface.  The 
steam-holes  in  this  second  crater  are  numerous  and  quite 
active;  so  much  so,  that  they  will  scald  and  suffocate 
one  if  he  goes  too  near  them.  This  is  a  matter  of  experi- 
ence with  us.  There  are  also  large  pit-holes,  where  the  lava 
has  fallen  in  some  fifty  and  even  one  hundred  feet  deep. 
But  the  present  lake  or  innermost  crater  is  the  par- 
ticular point  of  interest  at  this  wonderful  volcano.  This 
lake  in  shape  is  an  oblate  spheroid,  walled  in  by  a  per- 
pendicular bank  of  rock,  or  lava,  averaging  eighty  feet 
in  height.  When  we  stood  on  the  margin  of  this  bluff 
and  looked  down  upon  the  lake  we  were  considerably  dis- 
appointed in  not  seeing  the  whole  lake  in  commotion.  It 
was  incrusted  over  completely,  with  the  exception  of  three 
or  four  small  openings  around  the  margin  of  the  lake, 
v/hich  were  in  action.  The  redhot  lava  was  thrown  from 
these  in  small  quantities.  The  noise  produced  by  the 
action  was  very  much  like  that  of  a  pot  of  mush  over 


ii2  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

the  fire.  It  reminded  us  of  our  mother's  mush-pot.  The 
appearance  of  the  lake  in  general  was  an  iron  color  just 
before  it  comes  to  a  red  heat.  The  action  of  the  lava 
under  the  crust  caused  an  undulating  motion  that  was 
quite  observable.  Nevertheless  this  crust  was  so  thick 
and  tenacious,  that  we  threw  down  large  fragments  of 
rock  weighing  fifteen  and  twenty  pounds  without  breaking 
it.  Having  tarried  here  more  than  an  hour,  most  of  the 
company  suggested  that  we  had  better  return  to  our  lodg- 
ings; but  we  discovered  a  crack  directly  across  the  nar- 
rowest part  of  the  lake,  which  had  been  increasing  in  size 
from  the  time  we  came  to  the  lake  till  that  moment.  We 
remarked  to  the  company  that  there  was  a  probability 
that  the  entire  lake  would  soon  break  up.  In  twenty 
minutes  our  hope  was  gratified  by  a  most  brilliant  action ! 
One  of  the  openings  on  the  margin  became  much  more 
active  that  it  had  been,  throwing  large  quantities  of  melted 
lava  upon  the  crust  till  the  weight  became  unsupportable. 
This  was  near  the  fissure  alluded  to.  A  large  cake  or 
fragment  of  the  crust  gave  way  at  this  point.  Then  this 
crack  opened,  and  the  fiery  stream  issued  from  it  as  from 
a  great  dragon's  mouth.  The  whole  crust  was  broken 
into  irregular  fragments  like  cakes  of  ice,  and  were  rap- 
idly submerged  one  by  one  till  the  last  one  disappeared. 
The  entire  lake  was  in  commotion,  like  a  boiling  pot,  in 
five  minutes  from  the  first  submerging.  In  the  center  of 
the  lake  during  its  greatest  action  the  lava  was  thrown 
up  perpendicularly  fifteen  or  twenty  feet.  But  a  remark- 
able fact  is,  that  the  subsidence  and  complete  incrustation 
of  the  lake  was  as  rapid  as  the  breaking  up  was.  This 
was  the  first  piece  of  pyrotechny  we  were  ever  permitted 
to  witness.  A  dark  night  would  have  greatly  enhanced 
the  splendor  and  grandeur  of  the  scene.  We  all  heartily 
thanked  Pele,  the  goddess  of  the  volcano,  for  this  demon- 
stration. From  all  that  we  could  gather  from  this  bril- 
liant action  during  our  stay  there,  we  concluded  that 
there  must  be  a  similar  breaking  up  of  this  lake  once  in 
every  six  or  eight  hours.  The  heat  under  the  crust  be- 
comes so  great  that  it  must  have  relief  in  this  way.    We 


HONOLULU  CORRESPONDENCE.  113 

noticed  from  our  lodging,  which  was  within  the  rim  of 
the  first  crater,  that  once  or  twice  during  the  night  the 
light  at  the  lake  was  much  more  intense  than  usual.  We 
concluded  that  the  lake  was  in  commotion  at  these  times. 
This  sight  would  cure  all  who  are  troubled  with  atheism 
and  skepticism. 

Pele  is  an  imaginary  goddess  of  the  Hawaiians.  She 
is  the  goddess  of  fire  and  all  volcanoes.  She  is  repre- 
sented as  bathing  in  these  lakes  of  fire,  and  then  coming 
out  and  shaking  her  locks.  There  is  an  attenuated  sub- 
stance resembling  gray  horse  hair,  but  much  finer,  formed 
by  the  action  of  the  lava  thrown  out  in  a  heated  con- 
dition. This  is  thrown  out  with  such  force  into  the  air, 
and  its  tendency  to  cool  very  rapidly  leaves  it  in  this  form. 
This  by  the  natives  is  called  "Pele's  hair."  It  is  supposed 
to  fall  off  when  she  shakes  her  tresses  after  a  hot  bath. 
This  is,  indeed,  quite  a  curiosity.  We  saw  it  form  while 
at  the  lake.  It  is  so  light  that  the  wind  carries  it  off  to 
some  distance  when  thrown  out  by  the  heat.  It  is  the 
opinion  of  the  Hawaiians  that  Pele  has  left  the  Sandwich 
Islands.  I  heard  a  missionary  from  Marquesas  say  lately 
that  she  is  now  the  principal  divinity  of  the  Marquesans. 
They  say  the  missionaries  of  the  Sandwich  Islands  drove 
her  away  from  there,  and  she  went  to  Marquesas.  You 
would  not  probably  find  any  of  the  natives  here  who  would 
say  he  believed  there  was  such  a  being  as  Pele,  if  asked 
the  question;  still  it  is  supposed  that  very  many  of  them 
find  it  difficult  to  divest  themselves  entirely  of  this  super- 
stition. 

Having  collected  some  specimens  of  lava  and  sulphur, 
we  bade  adieu  to  Kilauea,  probably  never  to  see  it  again. 
We  came  away  instructed  and  almost  overwhelmed  with 
the  wisdom  and  power  of  God.  This  is  a  comment  upon 
the  lake  of  fire  and  brimstone,  so  graphically  spoken  of  in 
the  Apocalypse.  We  thank  God  that  we  were  ever  per- 
mitted to  behold  these,  which  are  only  a  part  of  His 
astonishing  work ! 

Though  Pele  has  left  the  supervision  of  these  Hawaiian 
fires,  yet  she  has  left  an  excellent  substitute  in  the  person 
8 


114  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

of  Rev.  Titus  Coan,  who  accompanied  us  and  greatly  in- 
terested us  by  his  knowledge  of  these  volcanoes.  He  is 
a  regular  vulcan,  and  happy  is  the  explorer  and  visitor 
who  can  secure  his  company  and  guidance:  He  has  been 
on  the  ground  for  the  last  twenty-five  years,  and  has  wit- 
nessed all  the  remarkable  outbreaks  during  that  time. 
Brother  Coan  is  a  devoted  missionary,  and  a  most  com- 
panionable man.  The  Lord  bless  him  in  his  "work  of 
faith  and  labor  of  love"  among  these  Islanders,  and  for 
his  great  kindness  towards  the  humble  writer  of  these 
sketches. 


THE  RELATION  OF  THE  COLLEGE  TO  PRAC- 
TICAL LIFE. 

(Delivered  by  Acting  President  Turner  at  the  Commencement  of  the 
University  of  the  Pacific,  1861.) 

It  is  with  considerable  reluctance  and  embarrassment 
that  I  appear  before  you  on  this  occasion  to  fill  the  place 
of  your  talented  and  absent  president.  The  novelty  of  the 
business  and  all  embarrass  me.  With  your  indulgence, 
however,  I  will  promise  to  do  the  best  I  can. 

My  design  is  to  be  practical,  and  I  have  chosen  as 
my  theme,  The  Relation  of  the  College  to  Practical  Life. 

The  present  is  an  age  of  colleges.  And  it  is  an  age 
of  colleges  because  is  it  an  intelligent  age.  The  college 
is  an  indispensable  fact  and  a  felt  power.  It  is  a  wheel 
in  the  car  of  human  progress.  It  is  exerting  a  far-reach- 
ing influence  in  the  civil,  literary,  and  Christian  world. 
The  college  is  not  an  irrelevant  something  sprung  into 
existence  from  an  inadequate  cause.  It  is  the  child  of 
stern  necessity.  It  bears  a  vital  relation  to  every  intelli- 
gent age  and  nation.  The  college  has  been  the  foster 
parent  of  civilization,  learning,  and  religion  from  a  very 
early  period.  It  is  the  nursery  of  the  arts  and  sciences, 
of  learning  and  greatness.  It  would  be  an  interesting 
and  profitable  task  to  trace  the  history  of  the  colleges 
from  the  earliest  accounts  we  have  of  them,  and  note  their 
influence  on  our  world  for  good;  but  this  would  be  aside 


RELATION  OF  THE  COLLEGE.  115 

from  our  present  purpose.  A  very  brief  glance  at  their 
history  must  suffice.  Schools  of  a  high  grade  were  known 
among  the  most  enlightened  and  educated  nations  of 
antiquity,  and  during  their  best  and  palmiest  days.  This 
fact  is  significant,  and  speaks  volumes  in  their  favor.  It 
is  a  well  established  truth  that  all  the  ancients  who  fig- 
ured as  statesmen,  orators,  physicians,  philosophers,  and 
poets  were  trained  in  some  one  of  the  literary  institutions 
of  their  day.  The  porch,  the  grove  or  academy,  the 
lyceum,  the  gymnasium,  are  spoken  of  as  institutions  of 
great  merit  and  influence.  And  the  masters  who  taught 
in  these  were  among  the  great  men  of  antiquity.  Such 
were  Aristotle,  Socrates,  Plato,  Zeno,  Quintilian,  and 
others.  The  bare  mention  of  such  names  is  sufficient  to 
suggest  the  character  of  their  schools.  Their  youth  were 
started  to  school  at  the  early  age  of  seven,  and  kept  in  the 
college  or  gymasium,  as  they  called  it,  till  twenty.  The 
branches  taught  were  mathematics,  philosophy,  oratory, 
rhetoric,  logic,  astronomy,  poetry,  painting,  music,  etc. 

You  can  not  refer  to  a  great  mind  in  ancient  times 
who  was  not  liberally  educated.  The  generals  even  had  to 
be  highly  educated.  This  was  true  both  of  Greece  and 
Rome.  So  it  has  been  with  nearly  all  the  great  in  Church 
and  State  from  the  days  of  Rome  till  now.  The  great 
Reformers  were  collegians;  Luther,  Melanchthon,  Zuin- 
gulius,  Calvin,  and  Knox  were  professors  in  colleges. 
The  Wesleys,  Whitefield,  Fletcher,  Berridge,  and  others 
who  took  the  lead  in  the  Reformation  of  the  eighteenth 
century  were  college-bred  men.  The  fathers  of  our  own 
country  were,  with  few  exceptions,  graduates.  It  is  said 
all  the  signers  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  were 
graduates  but  ten,  and  they  were  learned  men.  Who 
framed  our  great  Constitution?  They  were  graduates. 
Who  are  those  who  have  been  and  are  still  prominent  in 
expounding  it?  They  are  graduates.  Who  are  our  Su- 
preme Judges  and  ablest  advocates?  Most  all  of  them 
are  graduates.  So  with  nearly  all  the  great  statesmen 
of  England.  If  you  turn  your  attention  to  the  Christian 
ministry  the  same  fact  confronts  you.     But  our  present 


n6  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

object,  as  already  intimated,  is  not  to  give  an  extended 
history  of  colleges;  we  propose  noticing  the  wants  of  this 
age,  and  how  colleges  meet  these  wants.  The  demands  of 
the  present  age  may  be  seen  to  advantage  by  a  brief  glance 
at  the  learned  professions,  and 

The  profession  of  medicine.  The  physician  ought 
to  be  an  educated  man.  We  live  in  a  world  where  diseases 
abound,  and  which  may  be  alleviated  and  cured.  They 
may  at  least  by  skill  be  rendered  tolerable.  The  Creator 
has  without  doubt  placed  within  our  reach  remedial  agents 
whereby  most  of  the  evils  that  afflict  our  world  may  be 
relieved  and  cured,  but  most  of  these  are  so  hidden  from 
us  as  to  require  the  most  thorough  research  in  their  dis- 
covery and  the  nicest  judgment  and  skill  in  their  appli- 
cation. And  life  and  health,  too,  are  boons  so  dear  to  us 
that  we  can  not  consent  to  place  ourselves  under  the  treat- 
ment of  quacks  and  men  of  no  intelligence  and  skill.  And 
so  abstruse  and  difficult  is  this  important  science,  that 
years  of  patient  investigation,  reading,  and  practice  are 
requisite.  Let  no  smatterer  come  into  your  family  where 
life  is  imperiled.  We  have  it  in  our  heart,  and  we  may  as 
well  say  it,  that  man  who  writes  above  his  office  door 
"Doctor"  or  "Surgeon,"  and  has  not  passed  the  strictest 
and  most  rigid  examination  by  an  accredited  medical 
Faculty,  or  has  not  spent  years  in  the  study  of  medicine, 
ought  to  be  obnoxious  to  the  penitentiary.  And  that 
medical  Faculty  who  will  grant  a  man  a  diploma  and  send 
him  forth  to  deal  with  our  dearest  earthly  interests,  whom 
they  would  not  admit  into  their  own  families  under  ordi- 
nary circumstances,  richly  deserve  the  execrations  of  man- 
kind and  an  apartment  or  cell  hard  by  their  pupils.  This 
profession  especially  calls  for  students;  men  of  penetra- 
tion, men  of  severe  application  and  extensive  research. 
The  reasons  are  obvious.  How  various  and  stubborn  are 
the  diseases !  Their  name  is  legion.  They  too  are  con- 
stantly varying  by  change  of  climate  and  a  thousand  other 
causes,  and  as  a  matter  of  course  require  a  different  treat- 
ment according  as  they  are  thus'  modified.  The  changes 
and  their  numerous  and  perplexing  causes  demand  the 


RELATION  OF  THE  COLLEGE.  117 

most  careful  observation;  such  a  penetration  and  care  as 
no  uncultivated  and  unstudious  mind  is  prepared  to  be- 
stow upon  them;  such  as  no  empiric  or  butcher  can  pos- 
sibly give.  A  thorough  collegiate  training  previous  to 
the  medical  course  is  an  important  prerequisite  for  this 
noble  profession. 

The  legal  profession  is  a  demand  of  the  age.  This 
profession,  though  it  has  fallen  into  no  little  disrepute,  is 
nevertheless  necessary.  We  can  not  dispense  with  it, 
though  sadly  abused.  If  there  be  such  a  thing  as  a  neces- 
sary evil,  this  is  one.  As  long  as  there  is  sin  in  our  world, 
we  shall  probably  stand  in  need  of  laws,  administrators, 
and  advocates.  It  is  too  true  that  this  interesting  and 
important  profession  has  suffered  greatly  from  those  who 
have  chosen  it;  still  it  is  none  the  less  necessary  on  that 
account.  The  best  things  are  often  abused,  and  this  is 
one  of  them.  He  who  could  suggest  and  inaugurate  a 
reformation  of  the  law  profession  would  confer  a  lasting 
benefit  on  civil  society.  With  all  the  encomiums  lavished 
on  the  modern  bar,  and  some  of  it  is  doubtless  deserved, 
for  its  talent  and  learning,  nevertheless  there  is  still  a 
deal  of  ignorance  and  undisciplined  talent  in  the  profes- 
sion. There  is  probably  an  equal  or  greater  lack  of  moral 
principle  among  this  class.  There  is  but  one  sentiment 
prevailing  as  to  the  fact  that  the  profession  is  in  bad  odor 
and  that  there  is  imperative  need  of  reformation,  whatever 
may  be  their  views  respecting  the  causes  that  have  pro- 
duced this  prevalent  corruption.  We  shall  not  enter  into 
this  feature  of  the  case,  but  would  simply  inquire,  Can 
there  be  a  reform?  If  so,  how?  Such  is  the  state  of  civil 
society  that  there  will  doubtless  be  a  demand  for  the  pro- 
fession until  the  millennial  reign  shall  have  been  ushered 
in.  This  none  will  seriously  question.  This  necessity 
may  be  seen  in  the  astounding  fact,  that  amid  the  acknowl- 
edged general  corruption  in  this  profession  men  will  em- 
ploy them.  And  at  this  hour,  while  the  corruption  is  the 
most  palpable  and  notorious,  there  seems  to  be  a  greater 
demand  for  the  services  of  the  lawyer  than  heretofore. 
This  can  not  be  because  the  world  is  retrograding  in 


Ji8  STORY  OF  MY  UFB. 

morals,  but  because  the  public  good  demands  the  profes- 
sion. Before  we  had  wholesome  laws  and  magistrates 
men  took  the  law  into  their  own  hands  to  redress  their 
grievances;  now  it  is  otherwise.  This  will  account  for 
what  seems  a  degeneracy;  but  it  is  only  seeming.  Our 
happiness  and  well-being  are  in  no  little  measure  bound 
up  in  those  salutary  laws  enacted  for  the  preservation  of 
the  rights  of  the  body  politic,  and  there  are  so  many 
questions  of  a  difficult  nature  to  be  settled  that  we  need 
professional  men  who  shall  devote  themselves  to  these. 
The  profession  is  as  needful  as  are  the  laws  themselves. 
We  would  not  be  understood  as  affirming  that  the  low 
cunning  and  dishonesty  too  commonly  practiced  in  our 
courts  of  justice  by  coarse  advocates  and  pettifoggers  are 
necessary;  but  we  mean  that  proper  judges,  counselors, 
and  advocates  in  the  higher  sense  are  absolutely  requisite 
and  essential  to  the  welfare  of  society  as  now  constituted. 
The  time  may  come  when  they  will  not  be  needed ;  so  may 
the  time  come  when  ministers  of  the  Gospel  will  not  be 
needed;  but  that  time  is  not  yet.  This  state  of  things, 
however,  can  only  be  brought  about  when  such  purity 
and  efficiency  shall  be  rife  as  to  render  their  respective 
services  unnecesary;  but  not  till  then.  We  would  suggest 
that  the  surest  and  most  speedy  way  to  render  the  pro- 
fession of  the  law  unnecessary,  is  to  reform  it;  is  to  have 
those  who  will  honor  and  dignify  it  by  carrying  out  its 
true  intentions.  Let  none  decry  the  profession  of  the  law 
simply  because  it  is  abused.  It  is  as  much  an  institution 
of  God  as  is  the  Christian  ministry,  though  probably  more 
abused.  Any  one  might  with  equal  propriety  plead  for 
the  abolition  of  the  Christian  ministry  when  they  look  at 
the  priest-craft  that  prevailed  from  the  fifth  to  the  seven- 
teenth century,  and  that  now  exists  in  a  corrupt  Church 
that  we  wot  of.  Then  to  find  a  really  worthy  and  devoted 
minister  was  the  exception;  corruption  was  the  rule.  We 
think  that  properly  regulated  colleges  are  an  important 
and  efficient  instrumentality  in  effecting  this  needed  re- 
form. We  are  free  to  grant  that  there  are  other  agencies, 
but  we   conceive   none   will   be   more   potent   than   the 


RELATION  OF  THE  COLLEGE.  119 

training  received  at  our  higher  institutions  of  learning. 
If  any  will  take  the  pains  to  compare  those  lawyers  who 
have  had  a  collegiate  education  with  those  who  have  not, 
they  will  find  as  a  general  rule  that  the  most  honorable, 
high-minded,  and  talented  of  the  profession  are  largely 
made  up  of  these.  The  tendency  of  modern  collegiate  in- 
struction is  to  make  men  ashamed  of  little  and  mean 
artifices  to  carry  their  ends.  We  say  this  is  the  tendency 
of  college  education,  and  the  reason  is  obvious.  The  high 
moral  sentiments  there  inculcated  go  far  to  modify  and 
mold  men  in  this  regard.  And  just  in  proportion  to  the 
spread  of  general  intelligence  will  there  be  a  call  for  pure- 
minded  and  intelligent  lawyers.  These  must  be  furnished 
by  our  seminaries,  colleges,  and  universities.  We  are  not 
of  those  who  hold  that  the  profession  of  the  law  and  Chris- 
tianity are  antagonisms.  They  may  and  were  designed  to 
go  hand  in  hand.  Why,  what  is  the  law?  Is  it  not  its 
proper  and  peculiar  province  to  insure  and  secure  men  in 
their  rights  and  privileges?  Are  not  these  the  very  ends 
proposed  by  law?  A  lawyer  and  justice  ought  to  be 
synonyms;  and  not  as  many  hold,  that  lawyer  and  liar 
are  convertible  terms;  that  lawyer  and  justice  are  anti- 
podes. No  men  should  be  purer  and  more  high-minded 
than  lawyers.  They  ought  to  be  as  God  designed,  "a  terror 
to  evil  doers  and  a  praise  to  them  that  do  well."  We  hesi- 
tate not  to  give  it  as  our  deliberate  opinion  that  nothing 
will  contribute  more  surely  to  the  bringing  about  a  salu- 
tary reform  in  the  law  profession  than  a  thorough  mental 
and  moral  training  such  as  most  of  our  modern  colleges 
are  capable  of  imparting.  Let  it  be  remembered,  then, 
that  this  profession,  in  the  high  sense  now  spoken  of,  is 
a  necessity,  and  can  not  be  dispensed  with.  We  must  have 
it,  even  though  corrupt;  we  may,  however,  have  it  so  that 
it  will  be  an  honor  and  glory  to  the  State. 

Authorship  has  become  a  power  and  want  of  this  age. 
Such  is  the  demand  of  this  reading  age  that  authorship 
has  fully  assumed  the  style  of  a  profession.  The  art  of 
printing  has  awakened  such  a  thirst  for  knowledge  and 
so  multiplied  the  number  of  readers,  that  many  are  devot- 


120  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

ing  all  their  time  and  talent  to  this  one  department  alone. 
This  demand  is  imperative.  People  will  have  books,  bad 
if  they  must,  and  good  if  they  can.  The  public  taste  of 
late  years  has  been  greatly  vitiated.  A  purification  of  the 
fountains  of  literature  is  seriously  demanded.  Most  of 
our  authors  must,  as  they  have  heretofore,  come  from  our 
colleges.  These  ought  to  send  forth  such  numbers  and 
of  such  abilities  as  that  they  will  erelong  counteract  the 
trashy  effusions  that  are  flooding  our  country.  We  need 
those  who  combine  the  useful,  the  moral,  and  the  beau- 
tiful in  such  proportions  as  to  more  than  compete  with 
the  immoral  sentimentalism  of  much  of  our  present  liter- 
ature. But  the  press  being  one  of  the  great  bulwarks 
of  our  liberty,  it  becomes  a  matter  of  serious  moment, 
What  shall  be  the  qualifications  of  our  editors?  We  need 
learned  men — men  of  the  very  highest  type  of  morals; 
men  who  will  give  the  weight  of  their  abilities  and  influ- 
ence against  all  political  corruption  and  the  circulation 
of  injurious  publications;  men  who  will  discountenance 
and  satirize  the  coarse,  fictitious  literature  and  the  sickly 
sentimentalism  that  are  ruining  so  many  thousands  of  our 
youth  annually. 

An  alarming  feature  and  tendency  of  the  larger  share 
of  the  modern  press  is  the  publication  of  these  scandalous 
and  beastly  prizefights  and  other  very  questionable  notices 
with  such  particularity  as  to  disgust  and  offend  even  a 
moderate  literary  and  moral  taste.  These  relations  shock 
and  outrage  our  moral  sentiments,  while  they  minister  to 
the  lowest  and  basest  passions  of  the  corrupt  heart.  All 
such  notices  are  at  least  a  tacit  eulogium  on  prize  fights 
and  prize  fighters.  It  is  holding  out  strong  inducements 
to  our  youth  to  enter  the  ring  and  abandon  more  honor- 
able callings.  Shall  the  American  press  degrade  itself 
by  condescending  to  this  business?  Shall  she  not  wash 
her  hands  of  this  vice?  Reform  in  these  particulars  is 
much  needed.  From  whence  are  we  to  look  for  it?  This 
desideratum  we  humbly  conceive  can  be  in  a  great  meas- 
ure met  by  our  modern  Protestant  colleges.  If  not  here, 
we  know  not  where  we  may  turn  for  relief.    It  is  not  to 


RELATION  OF  THE  COLLEGE.  121 

be  inferred  that  we  can  hope  that  all  who  receive  a  thor- 
ough mental  and  moral  training  at  our  institutions  of 
learning  will  practice  what  was  inculcated  by  their  teach- 
ers; yet  we  may  hope  that  a  majority  of  them  will.  And 
this  will  fully  warrant  the  stress  we  have  laid  upon  college 
education. 

The  Christian  ministry  is  another  of  the  great  demands 
of  the  age.  This  calling  needs  no  eulogium  from  us.  Its 
power  and  influence  is  world-wide.  As  a  profession — if 
v/e  may  call  it  such — it  is  pre-eminent;  is  the  most  honor- 
able of  all  the  professions.  There  is  no  question  but  that 
moral  purity  is  an  indispensable  prerequisite  of  success 
herein;  still  it  is  no  less  true,  that  intelligence  and  edu- 
cation are  necessary.  We  are  free  to  grant  that  moral 
endowments  are  more  important  than  intellectual  endow- 
ments ;  but  while  we  seek  the  former,  we  are  no  less  bound 
to  acquire  the  latter.  True  it  is  a  great  gift  to  have  a 
stentorian  voice;  but  a  minister  has  something  else  to  do 
besides  roaring.  Any  lion  can  do  that  much  better.  It 
is  a  generally  admitted  fact  that  is  it  the  lightning  that 
does  the  execution,  and  not  the  thunder.  While  it  is  true 
that  in  the  natural  world  there  is  no  lightning  without 
some  thunder,  yet  we  are  quite  certain  that  the  analogy 
does  not  always  hold  good  in  the  moral  world.  Never 
was  there  such  a  demand  for  a  thoroughly  educated  min- 
istry as  now.  This  demand  grows  out  of  the  rapid  spread 
of  general  intelligence.  The  march  of  intellect  is  onward 
and  upward,  steadily,  energetically,  irrevocably.  There 
is  no  occasion  nor  wisdom  in  ignoring  this  fact  that  so 
continually  presses  itself  upon  our  attention.  The  Chris- 
tian ministry  to  be  efficient  must  be  above  the  people 
whom  they  serve  in  point  of  intelligence  and  research,  or 
they  will  be  doomed  to  preach  to  empty  seats  and  inevi- 
table defeat.  The  time  has  gone  by  when  bluster  and  rant 
will  pass  current  for  sense.  We  have  no  fault  to  find  with 
energy  when  it  is  properly  tempered  with  piety,  vigorous 
thought,  and  a  well  cultivated  taste.  The  more  the  better, 
other  things  being  equal.  We  must  have  an  educated 
ministry.     We   must   have  more   bold   and   independent 


122  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE, 

thinkers,  men  whose  thoughts  sparkle  and  burn  and  force 
conviction;  men  who  can  command  respect  and  command 
hearers.  Where  is  this  want  to  be  met  but  in  our  colleges 
and  Biblical  Institutes.  Their  rapid  multiplication  is  a 
sufficient  proof  that  the  Churches  are  waking  up  to  this 
subject. 

Another  want  of  this  age  is  statesmen.  We  seem  to 
have  fallen  on  perilous  times  in  this  particular.  We  have 
a  great  country  and  a  free  government,  whose  interests 
are  coextensive  with  their  magnitude  and  importance. 
There  are  weighty  interests  at  stake.  The  peace,  perpe- 
tuity, and  prosperity  of  our  Government  depends  upon  the 
intelligence  and  virtue  of  our  people.  No  free  government 
can  long  survive  without  these.  It  is  absolutely  requisite 
that  we  should  have  wise,  learned,  and  virtuous  statesmen 
who  shall  legislate  for  us,  and  shall  execute  the  laws  en- 
acted for  the  general  welfare.  The  corruption,  bargain 
and  sale,  and  the  low  chicanery  prevalent  among  most 
politicians  are  a  burning  disgrace  to  our  free  government. 
It  would  be  the  grossest  abuse  of  language  to  call  a  major- 
ity of  political  aspirants  statesmen.  They  are  the  veriest 
demagogues,  mere  wire-pullers,  as  far  below  the  true 
statesman  as  can  be  well  conceived.  We  need  men  of 
master  minds,  extensive  research,  and  of  elevated  moral 
purity,  and  incapable  of  being  bought  or  sold  by  money 
or  place,  above  all  party  considerations  unworthy  a  genu- 
ine patriot.  The  lust  for  place  and  power  has  become 
overgrown,  and  threatens  the  perpetuity  of  our  republican 
institutions.  And  government  patronage  has  become  an 
engine  of  power  to  pamper  and  feed  this  lust.  This  is 
becoming  a  volcano  that  will,  unless  checked,  burst  and 
upheave  the  very  foundations  of  our  civil  polity,  and  cast 
us  down  from  our  proud  eminence  into  anarchy  and  prob- 
ably civil  war.  This  is  one  of  the  giant  evils  to  be  battled 
against  in  our  Republic,  and  we  need  a  higher  type  of 
statesmen  than  we  now  have  to  meet  it.  They  must  not 
only  be  men  of  great  grasp  of  intellect,  but  those  who 
"fear  God  and  eschew  evil."  We  need  a  revival  of  the 
manly  and  noble  virtue  of  the  men  who  composed  the 


RELATION  OF  THE  COLLEGE.  123 

Congress  of  '76.  Such  is  the  perplexing  nature  of  many 
of  the  great  questions  agitating  the  public  mind,  that 
great  wisdom,  combined  with  a  pure  patriotism  and  fear 
of  God,  are  absolutely  essential  to  the  well-being  and  per- 
petuity of  our  free  institutions.  No  nation  can  long  re- 
main free  and  independent  unless  her  statesmen  are  in- 
telligent and  virtuous.  We  must  have  a  holy  veneration 
for  the  Bible  and  the  Author  of  civil  society.  For  this 
intelligence  and  virtue  we  must  turn  our  attention  to  the 
common  school,  the  college,  and  the  Church.  The  hopes 
of  our  country  and  civil  institutions  are  in  no  small  degree 
bound  up  in  our  higher  institutions  of  learning.  Our 
country  depends  primarily  upon  our  common  schools  and 
Evangelical  Protestantism,  and  secondarily  and  largely 
upon  our  Protestant  colleges,  where  the  youth  of  the  great 
Republic  receive  the  higher  forms  of  mental  and  moral 
training. 

The  last  want  of  the  age  we  shall  mention  is  the 
teacher.  If  any  class  of  men  deserve  the  designation  pro- 
fessional, the  school  teacher  does.  In  usefulness  and  im- 
portance he  stands  next  to  the  minister  of  the  Gospel. 
Their  relation  to  our  Government  has  not  yet  been  fully 
estimated.  Their  importance  is  commensurate  with  that 
other  great  truth,  that  republics  can  not  exist  without 
the  people  are  intelligent.  The  school  master,  then,  is  an 
institution.  They  ought  all  to  be  called  professors.  The 
common  school  system  is  the  legitimate  offspring  of  our 
free  institutions;  they  are  the  forerunners  of  our  colleges 
and  universities;  they  make  colleges  necessary.  This  is 
the  order :  Republics  must  have  general  intelligence ;  to 
have  general  intelligence  they  must  have  schools;  to  have 
schools  they  must  have  teachers;  to  have  competent 
teachers  they  must  have  colleges,  where  the  teachers  can 
get  the  necessary  qualifications.  Modesty  would  dictate 
that  we  should  say  no  more  on  this  topic. 

While  we  have  not  particularly  noticed  the  merchant, 
the  mechanic,  and  the  farmer,  they  nevertheless  are  a 
power  in  our  country.  They  must  needs  be  educated. 
They  can  not  be  prevented  being  intelligent.     Many  of 


124  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

them  will  naturally  and  necessarily  thirst  after  a  more 
thorough  education  than  our  common  schools  can  furnish 
them,  and  our  colleges  throw  open  their  portals  to  them 
equally  with  those  of  the  more  learned  professions.  We 
have  thus  taken  a  brief  glance  of  the  wants  of  this  age, 
which  will  in  some  measure  prepare  us  for  our  next  propo- 
sition, viz : 

How  our  colleges  meet  these  wants.  This  they  do  by 
furnishing  the  youth  of  the  land  every  facility  to  qualify 
themselves  for  the  various  callings  and  positions  in  active 
life.  The  college  is  a  complete  mental  gymnasium,  where 
all  the  faculties  of  the  mind  may  be  salutarily  developed. 
The  course  of  study  is  generally  arranged  with  a  view  to 
this  ultimate  object.  A  brief  reference  to  the  several  de- 
partments of  study  in  these  higher  institutions  of  learning 
may  not  be  irrelevant,  though  somewhat  commonplace. 
And  it  is  the  more  necessary  to  be  somewhat  particular, 
seeing  many  have  wholly  misapprehended  their  true  de- 
sign and  real  advantages.  The  question  is  not  unfre- 
quently  asked,  What  will  be  the  practical  benefit  of  this 
and  that  study?  Will  men  ever  use  them  after  they  leave 
college?  This  question  will  meet  with  a  full  answer  as 
we  pass  along  and  notice  each  of  the  departments.  Let 
it  not  be  lost  sight  of,  that  the  main  design  of  an  education 
is  to  give  men  the  perfect  control  and  free  use  of  their 
mental  faculties.  In  short,  it  is  to  teach  them  to  think, 
and  to  think  vigorously  and  independently.  Anything  less 
than  this  would  be  unworthy  a  college;  anything  more  in 
the  way  of  mere  intellectual  advantage  would  be  useless. 

Take  the  department  of  mathematics.  It  is  true  there 
are  many  things  taught  here  that  will  be  of  practical  bene- 
fit in  life;  but  vastly  more  that  the  student  will  never  have 
any  direct  use  for  after  leaving  the  halls  of  learning.  But 
the  advantages  derived  from  the  higher  mathematics  to 
the  student  is  the  power  of  concentrating  his  mind  on  any 
subject  that  may  demand  his  attention,  and  holding  it 
there  till  it  has  been  investigated  and  sounded  to  the  bot- 
tom. The  judgment  or  reasoning  power  is  specially  called 
into  action  in  mathematics.     With  the   bare  exception 


RELATION  OF  THE  COLLEGE.  125 

of  the  teacher,  engineer,  and  practical  astronomer,  these 
higher  mathematics  will  be  of  no  direct  practical  use  to 
him,  but  the  training  will  amply  compensate  for  all  the 
pains  and  time  employed  in  their  study.  The  reasoning 
power  being  a  principal  faculty  of  the  mind,  we  can 
scarcely  lay  too  much  stress  on  this  important  and  neces- 
sary branch  of  learning. 

Then  there  is  the  department  of  langauges.  Among 
these,  and  the  principal,  are  the  dead  languages.  Prob- 
ably not  one  in  a  hundred  who  study  these  expect  to  use 
them;  that  is,  to  speak  or  write  or  even  to  read  them  after 
having  left  college.  Where  their  advantage  then?  We 
will  show  where  and  how  it  is  very  great.  That  important 
faculty,  the  memory,  the  treasury  of  all  knowledge,  is  here 
called  into  the  highest  activity.  Some  suppose  that  this  is 
the  only  faculty  that  is  employed  in  the  study  of  lan- 
guages; but  the  truth  is,  no  study  calls  so  many  faculties 
into  play  and  vigorous  action  as  this.  In  addition  to  mem- 
ory, perception,  abstraction,  imagination,  and  reason  are 
indispensably  requisite.  Also  the  sesthetical  powers;  that 
is,  such  as  are  conversant  with  the  fine  arts.  The  science 
of  the  beautiful  are  cultivated  in  this  study.  The  nicest 
discrimination  is  here  cultivated.  It  also  exercises  the 
power  of  concentration,  but  in  a  little  different  way  from 
the  mathematics,  but  the  memory  in  particular.  To  illus- 
trate :  One  can  not  read  a  sentence  in  an  unknown  tongue 
without  first  consulting  the  Lexicon  and  learning  the 
meaning  of  the  word.  So  that  in  reading  a  chapter  many 
words  must  be  learned  and  memorized;  in  reading  a  book 
or  books  many  thousands  must  be  learned  and  remembered. 
This  calls  memory  into  full  play,  and  it  can  not  be  thus 
exercised  without  increasing  its  activity  or  tenacity.  But 
in  translating  with  facility  there  are  so  many  faculties 
called  into  exercise,  that  it  is  almost  incredible  how  many 
things  have  to  be  attended  to  by  the  mind  at  one  time,  and 
how  rapidly  they  must  perform  their  functions  in  even  an 
ordinary  readiness  in  rendering  out  of  one  tongue  into 
another.  For  example:  The  subject  or  noun  is  to  be 
sought  for ;  its  declension  and  case  determined ;  its  gender, 


126  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

number,  and  relation  perceived.  The  verb;  its  conjuga- 
tion, mood,  voice,  tense,  number,  and  person  settled;  the 
word  or  words  it  governs;  the  relative  modifying  words; 
the  particles  with  their  many  meanings,  and  nice  shades 
of  meanings;  the  idioms  and  peculiarities  of  the  language, 
and  the  hundreds  and  even  thousands  of  terminations  of 
nouns,  pronouns,  adjectives,  and  verbs.  This  is  all  to  be 
done  at  a  glance,  and  with  the  facility  that  a  pianist  passes 
over  the  keys  of  his  instrument.  Such  exercise  long  con- 
tinued gives  one  great  facility,  so  that  he  seems  to  do  it 
intuitively.  Here  not  only  the  memory,  but  perception, 
reason,  imagination,  and  abstraction  are  called  into  vigor- 
ous action,  and  are  strengthened  by  every  repetition.  The 
analytical  powers  are  required  here  more  than  anywhere 
else.  Analysis  is  requisite  at  every  step.  It  will  be  ob- 
served from  what  has  been  said  that  the  languages  are 
admirably  adapted  to  the  harmonious  cultivation  of  more 
faculties  than  any  one  study.  It  will  also  be  seen  that 
these  are  the  very  faculties  we  shall  be  called  upon  to  use 
most  in  active  life.  But  an  additional  advantage  conferred 
by  the  study  of  the  dead  languages  is,  that  it  gives  us 
a  more  thorough  acquaintance  with  the  principles  and 
genius  of  our  own  language.  It  aids  greatly  in  getting 
the  nice  distinctions  and  shades  of  meanings  of  different 
words,  and  increases  one's  stock  of  words  both  as  to  quan- 
tity and  quality.  These  it  must  be  granted  by  all  are  not 
trifling  considerations,  especially  those  of  cultivating  the 
memory,  perceptions,  and  the  reason. 

Next  is  the  department  of  natural  science.  The  bene- 
fits derived  from  this  department  are  so  palpable  and  so 
practical  withal,  that  no  one  scarcely  questions  the  pro- 
priety of  the  studies  coming  under  this  head.  The  same 
faculties  mentioned  are  somewhat  brought  into  play  here, 
though  much  less  than  in  the  other  departments.  Here 
we  find  chemistry,  natural  philosophy,  geology,  etc.  These 
are  instructive  and  interesting  studies,  and  can  not  be 
faithfully  pursued  without  great  profit,  both  as  regards 
the  mental  training  and  the  practical  use  most  men  will 
have  for  them. 


RELATION  OF  THE  COLLEGE.  127 

Then  there  are  the  departments  of  mental  and  moral 
science  and  belles-lettres.  These  embrace  mental  phi- 
losophy, moral  philosophy,  criticism,  elocution,  rhetoric, 
logic,  etc.  There  the  mind  will  find  something  to  grapple 
with,  as  well  as  to  please  and  instruct.  These  are  reckoned 
the  finishing,  as  it  were,  of  college  instruction.  This  is, 
so  to  speak,  the  veneering  and  polishing.  With  these  the 
college  hands  the  student  over  to  the  active  and  real  world 
to  work  his  own  way.  In  these  last  studies  the  faculties 
of  memory  and  judgment  are  particularly  called  into 
action.  These  severer  studies  are  admirably  adapted  to 
develop  the  higher  mental  powers. 

In  addition  to  all  the  facilities  afforded  the  student  in 
these  departments,  there  are  the  literary  societies  in  col- 
leges; these  are  institutions  of  themselves.    They  are  fur- 
nished with  good  libraries.     Here  the  young  men  have 
their  literary  and  polemical  contests  in  debate,  oration, 
declamation,  and  essay.    There  is  also  a  wholesome  emu- 
lation and  rivalry  existing  between  societies  and  students, 
which  prove  a  valuable  stimulus  in  acquiring  an  education. 
Now  we  hazard  the  assertion  that  did  students  not  have 
any  practical  use   for  anything  contained  in  the  whole 
course,  which  is  not  the  case,  still  the  mental  training 
alone  would  be  a  fine  acquirement.    Here  is  the  pith  of  the 
matter  after  all:   It  is  not  how  many  books  have  been 
skimmed  over,  but  how  many  principles  have  been  mas- 
tered.   How  much  muscle  and  nerve  have  been  made,  and 
how  much  have  they  been  enlarged  and  strengthened.    Is 
the  mind  prepared  to  grapple  with  the  great  principles 
and  truths  underlying  society?     Is  it  prepared  to  meet 
the  rugged  realities  of  active  life?     If  so,  this  is  suffi- 
cient; this  is  all  that  was  aimed  at  by  the  college.     This 
the  modern  seminary  and  college  is  prepared  to  do  when 
they  have  the  co-operation  of  the  pupil.    But  it  is  objected 
that  many  pass  through  college  and  are  numskulls  for  all 
that.    This  is  too  true,  yet  it  is  not  the  fault  of  the  college, 
but  of  the  student.     The   institution  only  professes  to 
furnish  the  facilities,  and  the  pupil  must  use  these,  or 
there  might  as  well  be  no  colleges.    Colleges  do  not  claim 


128  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

to  furnish  men  with  brains,  as  too  many  seem  to  have  con- 
ceived. They  propose  only  to  supply  food  and  exercise 
for  the  mind  that  wishes  to  apply  itself.  It  would  be  just 
as  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  optician  promises  to  fur- 
nish eyesight  to  the  blind,  because  he  professes  to  furnish 
glasses  to  assist  deficient  vision.  No  one  would  find  fault 
with  a  pair  of  spectacles  because  a  man  who  does  not 
know  his  alphabet  is  not  able  to  read  fluently  when  he 
looks  through  them.  Their  design  was  not  to  teach  men 
to  read,  but  to  assist  them  to  see. 

Again  it  is  urged  against  colleges  that  there  are  many 
men  who  never  attended  a  school  of  a  high  grade  who 
far  surpass  some  who  have,  both  in  learning  and  ability 
to  think.  Grant  it.  What  does  it  prove?  That  we  had 
better  be  without  colleges  ?  By  no  means.  It  only  proves 
that  occasionally  we  find  one  who  has  such  application 
and  energy  as  to  surmount  the  barriers  and  difficulties 
in  the  way  of  getting  an  education.  The  same  could  have 
been  accomplished  in  much  less  time  and  with  much  less 
labor  had  they  enjoyed  the  advantages  of  a  college  edu- 
cation. It  were  as  if  men  refused  to  use  the  improved 
instruments  for  cutting  and  threshing  grain,  because  they 
have  the  old-fashioned  sickle  and  flail;  or  the  sewing 
machine,  because  they  have  a  thimble  and  needle.  It  is 
true  men  have  cut  their  crops  with  a  sickle  and  threshed 
it  with  a  flail,  and  carried  it  to  the  mill  with  grain  in  one 
end  of  the  bag  and  a  stone  in  the  other.  The  same  thing 
can  be  done  again;  but  who  would  hazard  his  reputation 
for  common  sense  by  advising  a  return  of  this  primitive 
way  of  doing  things,  and  abandoning  all  the  modern  dis- 
coveries in  the  useful  arts  and  sciences? 

There  is  also  an  objection  urged  against  the  time  re- 
quired to  pass  through  a  regular  collegiate  course.  It  is 
true  it  takes  from  four  to  six  years.  Many  young  men  are 
impatient  to  enter  some  business  or  profession,  and  im- 
agine that  they  can  not  afford  to  defer  the  matter  so  long. 
One  would  think,  to  witness  their  zeal  and  impatience  to 
benefit  the  world,  that  they  had  serious  apprehensions  that 
the  great  wheels  of  nature  would  stop,  and  that  serious 


RELATION  OF  THE  COLLEGE.  129 

derangement  might  occur  in  the  Church  and  State  unless 
their  services  were  forthcoming.  Is  it  not  possible  that 
they  may  be  laboring  under  a  slight  mistake  as  to  this? 
The  sun,  moon,  and  stars  will,  in  all  probability,  keep  their 
orbits,  and  empires  and  republics  may  dispense  with  their 
distinguished  abilities  for  at  least  eight  or  ten  years 
longer.  There  are,  however,  some  whom  we  despair  of 
convincing  as  to  the  truthfulness  of  this  position.  We 
shall  have  to  pass  them  over  to  those  knowing  ones  of 
whom  Job  speaks,  "Ye  are  the  people,  and  wisdom  shall 
die  with  you." 

A  man  who  enters  a  profession  without  a  thorough  edu- 
cation will  be  like  a  mechanic  who  is  compelled  to  work  in 
a  narrow  apartment  with  but  few  and  dull  tools.  It  is 
true  he  may  do  something  by  hard  blows,  but  at  best  it  is 
but  bungling  work.  It  is  really  an  economy  of  time  to 
spend  the  required  period  in  some  college,  and  become 
thoroughly  furnished  for  the  business  of  life.  With  proper 
training  more  efficient  good  can  be  accomplished  in  one 
year,  than  in  three  without  the  required  foundation.  If 
a  man  would  be  a  workman  that  needeth  not  to  be  ashamed 
let  him  give  himself  earnestly  and  persistently  to  a  thor- 
ough system  of  mental  education.  Let  him  drill  himself 
as  the  soldier  does;  let  him  exercise  himself  regularly 
and  systematically  as  the  wrestler  and  pugilist  do  if  he 
would  succeed.  Let  all  the  mental  faculties  be  in  a  vigor- 
ous and  healthful  condition.  As  good  a  capital  as  a  young 
man  needs  in  this  world  is  a  well-disciplined  mind.  He 
can  soon  gather  matter;  nay,  he  can  create  matter,  and 
will  then  be  prepared  to  use  it  efficiently.  We  have  taken 
this  somewhat  particular  view  of  college  training,  and 
yet  we  have  spoken  of  but  a  small  part  of  what  might  be 
said  of  the  advantages  of  such  a  course.  Add  to  this  the 
stimulus  of  a  noble  emulation  which  is  awakened  by  the 
contact  of  mind  with  mind,  and  you  have  an  additional 
argument  for  colleges.  This  is  a  kind  of  friction  or  ex- 
citant which  becomes  one  of  the  surest  means  of  success, 
and  that  wouV  not  be  likely  to  be  enjoyed  outside  of  the 
college  and  its  surroundings. 

9 


i3o  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

In  conclusion  upon  this  subject,  allow  me  to  repeat 
and  impress  the  principal  thought  of  this  whole  subject 
upon  your  minds,  young  gentlemen  and  ladies !  You  are 
here  not  simply  to  stuff  yourselves  with  Greek  and  Latin 
and  the  higher  mathematics,  for  which  you  may  never 
have  any  immediate  practical  use,  but  you  are  here  to 
master  principles,  to  learn  to  think.  A  man  is  educated 
who  has  learned  to  think;  he  is  not  who  can  not  think 
vigorously  and  independently,  it  matters  not  how  much 
of  the  classics  and  mathematics  he  may  have  gone  over. 
Do  not  forget  this  simple  fact;  it  is  not  the  amount  of 
food  the  human  stomach  takes  in  that  benefits  the  body, 
but  the  amount  it  thoroughly  digests  and  assimilates.  It 
is  not  the  quantity  that  one  reads  that  does  him  good, 
but  the  amount  he  can  digest  and  appropriate.  One  chap- 
ter of  Latin  or  Greek  thoroughly  analyzed  and  mastered 
is  better  than  a  volume  superficially  read.  One  propo- 
sition mastered  as  to  its  principles  is  better  than  the  whole 
of  Euclid  recited  after  the  parrot  style.  Modern  colleges 
afford  men  all  the  facilities  for  this  thorough  mental  train- 
ing if  they  will  but  use  them.  While  it  is  not  true  that  all 
or  most  of  the  studies  are  of  little  practical  benefit  to  the 
student  after  having  left  college,  yet  we  would  lay  par- 
ticular emphasis  on  the  fact  that  the  discipline  is  altogether 
paramount  to  the  mere  knowledge  acquired.  We  are  will- 
ing to  take  the  ground  that  the  mind  which  has  submitted 
to  the  rigid  exercises  requisite  to  pass  through  the  higher 
mathematics,  Greek,  Latin,  Chemistry,  Rhetoric,  and 
Logic,  must  be  educated  in  the  highest  sense.  If  the  prin- 
ciples of  these  are  mastered,  we  care  not  whether  one  fact 
has  been  retained  for  future  use  or  not.  If  the  power  to 
think,  and  to  think  vigorously  and  efficiently,  has  been 
acquired,  this  is  the  chief  object  in  an  education. 

A  few  words  to  these  young  men  and  ladies  about  to 
leave  us.  We  need  not  say  that  we  feel  solicitous  for  your 
welfare  and  success  in  active  life.  You  are  going  into  a 
world  of  stubborn  realities;  not  less  stubborn  than  many 
of  the  subjects  with  which  you  have  grappled  in  your  col- 
lege course.    Do  not  fall  into  the  very  common  mistake 


LOST  LIGHT  OF  HEATHEN  NATIONS.     131 

that  your  days  of  study  are  over.  They  have  just  begun 
in  good  earnest.  If  you  have  realized  the  true  design 
of  education,  you  are  now  prepared  to  study  in  the  true 
sense  of  the  word.  Resolve  to  play  the  true  scholar.  Let 
your  aims  be  pure  and  elevated,  and  pursue  your  purpose 
with  unwearied  devotion  and  perseverance.  Whatever 
professions,  young  gentlemen,  you  may  enter,  resolve  to 
be  more  than  mere  novices,  and  rise  superior  to  all  mean 
condescensions.  Never  permit  yourselves  to  do  an  un- 
worthy act  for  party  or  other  ends.  Respect  yourselves, 
and  you  will  not  fail  to  win  the  confidence  and  respect 
of  others.  You  may  do  your  Alma  Mater  signal  service 
by  dignifying  yourselves.  And  to  these  young  ladies  we 
would  say  we  have  a  right  to  claim  and  to  expect  that  the 
full  weight  of  your  influence  and  talents  will  be  given  to 
true  education.  We  know  in  this  particular  our  expecta- 
tions are  not  groundless.  This  institution  sends  you  forth, 
young  gentlemen  and  ladies,  with  her  lessons  and  influ- 
ences to  bless  the  world.  May  a  good  Providence  attend 
you  through  life !  We  bid  you  Godspeed  and  abundant 
success.  Let  us  as  your  teachers  assure  you  that  we  shall 
always  take  unmingled  pleasure  in  learning  of  your  pros- 
perity.   Our  prayers  and  best  wishes  go  with  you. 


THE  LOST  LIGHT  OF  HEATHEN  NATIONS. 

Sermon. 

God  has  given  to  all  nations  at  some  time  in  their 
history  light  sufficient  to  have  guided  them  aright,  and  if 
they  are  without  it  now  it  is  because  they  have  lost  it  or 
perverted  it.     (Rom.  i,  18-25.) 

When  I  was  a  boy  in  the  Sunday-school,  the  com- 
monly accepted  opinion  of  the  religious  world  was,  that 
the  nations  of  the  world  called  "heathen"  were  receiving 
the  religion  of  the  Bible  for  the  first  time  in  the  last,  say 
two  hundred  years.  That  ever  since  the  flood  the  great 
mass  of  mankind,  except  the  Jews,  were  without  a  Divine 


132  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

revelation,  without  any  knowledge  of  the  true  God,  or 
redemption  from  their  besotted  and  deplorable  moral  con- 
dition. And  this  opinion  obtains  to  a  large  extent  even 
to-day  among  many  otherwise  intelligent  people,  that  God 
had  for  some  reason  not  explained  left  them  in  this  sad 
moral  plight. 

This  view  of  the  moral  condition  of  the  heathen  world 
that  I  had  in  common  with  Christians  of  my  early  man- 
hood never  quite  satisfied  my  mind,  and  during  my  resi- 
dence at  the  Sandwich  Islands  it  gave  me  great  concern 
as  a  moral  and  religious  question.  My  sense  of  justice 
revolted  at  what  I  saw  and  read  of  their  condition  as 
far  back  as  the  times  after  the  flood.  I  could  not  reconcile 
this  state  of  things  with  God's  goodness,  justice,  and  im- 
partiality. I  could  see  the  wisdom  and  benevolence  of 
carrying  the  precious  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  to  these  be- 
nighted people;  but  why  they  should  be  left  these  long 
centuries  in  this  wretched  condition  I  could  not  compre- 
hend, and  was  ill  at  rest.  If  a  revelation  was  imperatively 
needed  by  the  race,  it  was  needed  by  all,  and  not  by  so 
small  a  fraction  as  had  it. 

One  day  while  seriously  revolving  this  subject  in  my 
mind,  I  felt  strongly  inclined  to  ask  God  for  light,  and 
such  light  as  would  vindicate  His  goodness  and  justice 
alike.  I  opened  my  Bible  and  fell  on  my  knees,  and  the 
first  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  was  what  my 
eyes  fell  on.  It  was  here  that  a  satisfactory  solution  o£ 
this  whole  problem  was  revealed  to  me  that  gave  me  as 
much  joy  and  satisfaction  as  ever  my  conversion  gave 
me,  and  that  was  not  small  I  can  assure  you.  I  am  pleased 
to  call  this  a  revelation  by  interpretation. 

With  this  preliminary  statement  of  the  case  I  proceed 
to  lay  down  this  proposition  and  attempt  its  elucidation, 
that  God  has  given  to  every  nation  or  people  at  some  time 
a  Divine  revelation  over  and  above  what  they  can  gather 
from  the  book  of  nature  sufficient  to  have  guided  them  in 
their  duties  to  Him  and  their  felloiv-men;  and  if  they  are 
not  in  possession  of  that  light  now,  it  is  because  they  have 
lost  it  or  perverted  it. 


LOST  LIGHT  OF  HEATHEN  NATIONS.     133 

My  main  proof  for  the  argument  will  be  drawn  from 
the  Bible.  It  is  the  oldest  Book  in  the  world.  It  is  the 
best  established  Book  in  the  world.  It  contains  the  most 
important  truths  and  teachings  in  the  world.  It  has  done 
more  for  the  enlightenment  and  civilization  of  mankind 
than  all  the  books  of  the  world.  It  has  given  the  best 
civil  code  of  the  world,  as  the  most  enlightened  nations 
are  proof  by  their  adoption  of  that  code.  It  has  given  the 
world  its  acknowledged  finest  literature.  It  has  given 
the  world  the  highest  order  of  moral  heroes  that  it  has 
ever  had.  It  has  given  the  world  the  only  spotless  and 
sinless  character  it  has  known  since  the  fall;  namely, 
the  Nazarene,  "the  chief  among  ten  thousand  and  the 
altogether  lovely."  This  ought  to  settle  the  character 
and  quality  of  its  testimony. 

I  feel  a  large  degree  of  confidence  in  the  ground  I 
propose  to  traverse,  because  of  the  character  of  this  his- 
tory. Moses  is  credited  as  the  author  of  the  Book  of 
Genesis.  Whoever  wrote  it  had  the  historic  quality.  It 
is  straightforward  and  direct.  It  claims  that  God  in  creat- 
ing man  pronounced  the  work  "very  good;"  good  as  to 
His  purpose,  and  good  as  to  man's  innocency.  This  is 
what  we  should  expect  from  an  Almighty  and  benevolent 
Creator.  That  this  being  called  man  stands  at  the  head 
of  creation,  and  is  put  under  moral  law,  under  the  most 
favorable  environments,  with  all  the  information  neces- 
sary to  his  knowledge  of  his  obligations  to  his  Creator 
and  to  his  fellow-beings  no  one  can  doubt.  He  was  clearly 
and  definitely  told  the  consequences  of  obedience  and  dis- 
obedience to  this  moral  law.  How  long  he  maintained 
his  innocence  we  need  not  now  ask;  but  the  fact  of  his 
lapse  into  sin  is  clearly  and  sadly  told.  If  Archbishop 
Usher's  chronology  is  not  at  fault,  which  it  probably  is, 
a  period  of  some  sixteen  centuries  was  used  by  God  to 
reclaim  His  fallen  subjects,  but  with  comparatively  little 
avail,  until  God  was  under  the  moral  necessity  of  sweeping 
the  race  off  the  face  of  the  earth  with  a  disastrous  flood, 
with  the  exception  of  Noah  and  his  family.  The  point  I 
make  is,  that  there  was  a  number  of  good  men  and  fam- 


i34  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

ilies  like  Enoch  and  Noah,  preachers  of  righteousness, 
who  were  loyal  to  God's  moral  government  and  kept  alive 
and  illustrated  the  principles  of  righteousness  and  the 
moral  light  God  had  given  to  man  at  his  advent  into  this 
world. 

The  next  important  fact  of  history  was  the  saving  of 
Noah  and  his  family,  to  give  the  race  a  second  probation 
under  a  religious  Teacher  in  possession  of  the  original 
light  God  had  given  at  the  beginning  and  the  warning  of 
the  terrible  catastrophe  of  the  Flood. 

If  the  sons  and  family  of  Noah  are  the  new  progenitors 
of  the  coming  peoples  of  the  world,  the  case  is  clear  that 
this  family  possessed  all  the  light  that  the  first  pair  had 
and  transmitted  it  to  their  posterity  with  probably  the 
additional  light  of  experience. 

Among  the  immediate  descendants  of  Noah  on  the  male 
side  we  have  the  names  of  Shem,  Ham,  and  Japheth. 
The  present  races  or  peoples  of  the  world  are  the  de- 
scendants of  these  branches.  Intelligent  genealogists  have 
undertaken  to  inform  us  what  portions  of  the  globe  are 
the  lineal  descendants  of  these  branches,  so  that  I  need 
not  take  time  to  speak  of  that  fact  here,  only  to  say  that 
at  the  confusion  of  the  language  at  the  tower  of  Babel 
we  learn  from  the  historian  that  degeneracy  of  morals  had 
again  manifested  itself  with  the  rapid  increase  of  the  popu- 
lation, and  that  the  confounding  the  language  and  the 
dispersion  were  intended  of  God  to  check  the  growing 
profligacy  and  corruption,  and  also  the  spread  of  the 
knowledge  of  God's  moral  government  would  almost  nec- 
essarily follow  with  the  dispersed  people.  In  this  dis- 
cussion it  is  well  to  remember  that  we  are  stepping  over 
long  stretches  of  history,  and  can  only  in  the  compass 
of  this  paper  touch  upon  the  salient  points,  or,  if  you 
please,  the  mountain  peaks  of  this  historic  argument.  Per- 
mit me  to  call  your  attention  to  the  patriarch  Job  as  an 
illustrative  argument.  There  is  no  doubt  that  this  is  a 
very  ancient  history.  He  doubtless  is  a  descendant  of 
one  branch  of  Noah's  family,  and  his  country  is  either 
Persia  or  Arabia.    In  reading  the  Book  of  Job  one  must 


LOST  LIGHT  OF  HEATHEN  NATIONS.     135 

be  struck  with  the  sublimity  of  the  language  and  the  ele- 
vated conception  he  had  of  the  moral  government  of  God. 
The  inquiry  naturally  arises,  when  did  Job  get  this  knowl- 
edge? He  was  in  possession  of  it  to  a  degree  that  sur- 
prises us  when  we  consider  the  degeneracy  of  his  times. 
It  requires  no  stretch  of  the  imagination  to  trace  it  by 
tradition  to  Noah  and  his  posterity.  God  has  had  all  along 
the  history  of  nations  a  few  exceptional  witnesses  of  His 
truth  among  degenerate  peoples,  who  once  had  the  truth 
and  light,  but  have  abused  it. 

Dr.  Bushnell,  somewhere  in  a  sermon  or  a  lecture,  has 
made  a  statement  of  a  woman  in  "Darkest  Africa,"  who 
had  a  most  remarkable  influence  and  power  over  the  bar- 
barous tribes  when  the  first  missionaries  arrived  there; 
that  was  a  great  surprise  to  the  missionaries.  She  was 
a  woman  of  high  moral  endowments,  and  would  have 
done  credit  to  any  modern  Christian.  She  used  her  kind 
offices  to  reconcile  warring  tribes  in  her  day  with  signal 
effect.  How  came  she  to  get  this  power?  Doubtless  by 
Divine  tradition  from  some  of  the  descendants  of  Noah's 
family.  So  we  have  a  pertinent  and  forcible  suggestion 
in  this  case  of  how  it  comes  to  pass  that  in  the  religions 
of  India  and  China  we  find  notions  that  are  quite  like  the 
religion  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 

Take  the  Hebrew  people,  who,  more  than  other  nations, 
have  maintained  in  a  long  succession  of  centuries  the 
depository  of  religious  knowledge  with  fewer  serious 
breaks  or  lapses  than  other  nations,  as  was  the  case  of 
Abraham  and  his  immediate  descendants.  I  want  to  speak 
of  Joseph  in  Egypt  as  an  important  historic  fact  in  its 
bearing  on  this  argument.  Whoever  of  the  sons  of  Noah 
are  the  progenitors  of  the  Egyptian  people  it  is  not  essen- 
tial to  decide  now ;  but  it  is  certain  at  the  time  of  Joseph's 
life  in  Egypt,  there  was  a  great  and  serious  corruption 
of  the  faith  and  practice  of  Noah  and  his  sons.  While 
Egypt  was  far  advanced  in  knowledge  of  the  arts  and 
sciences  of  that  day,  they  had  fallen  into  the  grossest 
idolatry  and  lascivious  living  among  her  rulers  and  most 
cultured  classes.     In  studying  the  history  of  Joseph  in 


136  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

Egypt  we  are  liable  to  fall  into  the  common  opinion,  that 
God's  permission  of  Joseph's  bondage  in  that  country  was 
mainly  to  provide  for  the  people  of  Canaan  at  the  time 
of  the  seven  years'  famine;  but  I  suspect  that  a  more 
rational  interpretation  of  that  remarkable  Providence  was 
the  restoration  of  the  religious  light  they  had  lost,  the 
almost  total  eclipse  of  the  Hebrew  religion  so  beautifully 
exemplified  in  the  life  and  spirit  of  Joseph.  The  residence 
of  Joseph  and  his  posterity  in  Egypt  for  a  period  of  some 
four  hundred  years  with  the  adoption  and  training  of 
Moses,  was  a  fitting  education  of  that  nation  of  God's 
purpose. 

How  persistent  and  careful  God  has  been  all  along  the 
history  of  the  world  to  keep  alive  by  His  judgments  and 
providences  to  restore  the  light  that  has  been  carelessly 
and  deliberately  lost  by  the  nations  who  once  had  it !  How 
next  to  impossible  it  must  have  been  for  the  Israelites 
to  live  in  Egypt  four  hundred  years  without  deeply  show- 
ing that  proud  nation  of  the  marked  contrast  in  the  two 
religions  thus  exemplified  before  them.  The  Pharaoh  of 
Joseph's  time  was  profoundly  impressed  by  it,  and  pro- 
moted Joseph  to  the  second  place  in  the  kingdom.  Then 
the  Pharaoh  of  Moses'  time,  when  the  Israelites  had  mul- 
tiplied to  two  or  three  millions,  had  a  most  remarkable 
experience  in  God's  method  in  breaking  up  the  slavery  of 
that  people  under  the  leadership  of  Moses,  who  refused 
"to  be  called  the  son  of  Pharaoh's  daughter,"  but  pre- 
ferred to  suffer  affliction  with  the  people  of  God  than  to 
enjoy  the  pleasures  of  sin  for  a  season  and  wear  a  crown 
and  wield  an  earthly  scepter.  This  was  an  exhibition  of 
self-surrender  so  seldom  seen  in  this  world,  that  rather 
than  surrender  his  religious  principles  taught  by  his  He- 
brew ancestors,  he  was  willing  to  suffer  banishment.  Thus 
God  was  shedding  moral  and  religious  light  upon  a  whole 
nation,  and  that  the  most  advanced  nation  of  that  age  in 
literary  culture,  for  it  is  particularly  mentioned  in  a  later 
age,  "that  Moses  was  learned  in  all  the  wisdom  of  the 
Egyptians  and  was  mighty  in  words  and  deeds." 

Another  link  in  the  chain  of  evidence  that  God  has 


LOST  LIGHT  OF  HEATH  UN  NATIONS.     137 

given  religious  and  supernatural  light,  is  found  in  the 
history  of  the  Ninevites  and  the  Babylonians.  The  case 
of  Jonah's  being  sent  to  Nineveh  to  warn  her  of  her  sins 
and  departure  from  the  light  and  truth  she  once  had. 
Jonah  did  not  relish  the  mission  on  which  God  sent  him, 
as  we  well  know;  but  he,  attempting  to  run  from  duty, 
reconsidered  the  matter,  and  went  and  warned  Nineveh 
unless  she  repented  God  would  destroy  her  "in  forty 
days."  She  repented.  The  king  commanded  a  public  fast 
to  be  kept  throughout  his  whole  kingdom.  Where  did  she 
get  a  knowledge  of  a  religious  fast,  but  from  her  former 
religious  observances,  and  from  which  she  had  fearfully 
backslidden?     (See  the  account.) 

Take  the  Babylonian  captivity  of  the  Jews  for  a  period 
of  seventy  years.  God  in  disciplining  the  Jews,  who  were 
the  depository  of  religious  knowledge  in  an  eminent  sense, 
were  many  of  them,  as  in  the  cases  of  Daniel  and  his  com- 
panions, loyal  and  faithful  to  their  religious  vows,  and 
profoundly  impressed  themselves  on  the  rulers  by  their 
adherence  to  the  Hebrew  religion,  as  we  know.  It  is  gen- 
erally believed  by  eminent  scholars,  that  the  Ninevites 
and  Babylonians  are  the  descendants  of  Shem,  and  re- 
tained some  of  the  light  of  their  illustrious  ancestor, 
though  they  had  grievously  departed  from  his  true  light. 
Thus  we  have  another  striking  example  of  God's  care  to 
restore  light  that  had  been  lost  by  culpable  neglect  and 
deliberate  disobedience,  by  His  providential  chastisement 
of  His  professed  people  in  their  sore  and  long  captivity. 
Let  it  also  be  remembered  that  many  of  the  captives  never 
returned  to  their  own  land,  but  remained  in  Babylon  and 
Chaldea  of  choice,  as  a  warning  to  Babylon  of  the  dire 
consequences  following  a  misuse  of  God-given  light  and 
truth.  The  dispersion  of  the  Jewish  people  for  two  thou- 
sand years  is  a  monumental  warning  to  Christian  nations 
against  disloyalty  to  God's  revelations  of  light  and  truth. 
They  are  without  a  national  government  even  to  this 
day,  and  like  the  bush  of  Moses,  burning  but  not  con- 
sumed. The  doctrine  of  the  true  God  is  held  unflinch- 
ingly to  this  day  among  the  people  with  whom  they  live. 


138  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

This  brings  us  down  to  the  days  and  teaching  of  Jesus 
Christ,  who  is  God's  highest  supernatural  revelation  to 
our  world,  and  whom  Nicodemus  declared  to  be  "the 
Teacher  come  from  God." 

I  select  the  parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son  as  an  un 
answerable  argument  of  my  proposition  of  supernatural 
light  being  given  to  all  nations  at  some  time  in  their  his- 
tory, and  their  loss  of  it  the  result  of  their  deliberate 
disobedience  and  neglect  of  said  light. 

I  am  warranted  in  saying  that  the  purpose  of  Christ 
in  the  use  of  this  beautiful  and  forcible  parable,  as  voiced 
by  nearly  all  commentators,  was  to  enforce  the  truth  that 
all  nations  have  had  all  necessary  moral  and  religious 
light  given  them.  That  is,  the  older  son  represents  the 
Jewish  nation,  and  the  younger  son  the  Gentile  or  heathen 
nations,  as  to  God's  supernatural  revelation  to  the  world. 
If  this  was  Christ's  primary  purpose  in  its  use,  or  its  main 
purpose,  it  follows  inevitably  and  logically  that  the  younger 
son  had  all  the  religious  light  and  benefit  of  that  home 
that  the  older  son  had,  and  they  started  out  in  life  with 
equal  opportunities;  but  the  younger  son  spent  his  sub- 
stance in  riotous  living  and  profligacy  till  he  reached  the 
degradation  and  pitiable  conditions  of  a  voluptuous  spend- 
thrift. Then  if  this  is  what  Christ  meant  by  the  younger 
son,  that  he  represents  the  Gentile  or  heathen  nations,  then 
it  absolutely  teaches  that  God  has  given  all  nations  suffi- 
cient light  to  have  guided  them,  and  if  they  are  without  it 
now  it  is  because  they  have  lost  it,  and  aside  from  this 
view  the  parable  is  meaningless. 

Let  us  now  turn  to  the  first  chapter  of  Paul's  letter 
to  the  Romans,  and  see  if  his  argument  does  not  tally 
with  the  proposition  laid  down  and  elucidated  by  the  fore- 
going facts  of  Sacred  History. 

Now  let  it  be  remembered  that  Paul  is  writing  to  a 
Church  that  had  recently  been  converted  from  heathenism, 
and  heathenism  of  the  grossest  kind  of  abominations,  and 
vices  scarcely  to  be  mentioned  in  a  promiscuous  assembly. 
He  was  speaking  to  those  who  knew  what  he  was  writing 
about,  and  did  not  admit  of  debate.    They  were  terrible 


LOST  LIGHT  OF  HEATHEN  NATIONS.     139 

and  notorious  truths  he  mentioned.  How  great  must  have 
been  the  moral  elevation  they  had  fallen  from,  as  great  as 
that  of  the  younger  son  in  the  parable.  Now  let  us  follow 
the  steps  of  his  argument  link  by  link  to  its  consummate 
close,  and  note  his  complete  and  triumphant  vindication 
of  God's  goodness,  faithfulness,  and  impartiality  to  the 
race  of  mankind  in  His  revelations.  The  revelation  here 
made  to  man  is  a  double  revelation  by  nature,  and  above 
nature.  "For  the  wrath  of  God  is  revealed  from  heaven 
against  all  ungodliness  and  unrighteousness  of  men  who 
hold  the  truth  in  unrighteousness."  (Verse  18.)  ''The 
displeasure  of  God  is  revealed  from  heaven  against  all 
ungodliness  and  unrighteousness  of  men."  These  two 
forms  of  wrong-doing  of  men  comprehend  all  forms  of 
sin  known  to  men.  Man  was  made  in  the  image  and  like- 
ness of  God,  and  He  gave  a  moral  law  of  strict  right  and 
wrong,  and  revealed  it  to  all  men  "from  heaven"  over  and 
above  what  they  might  gather  from  the  book  of  nature, 
"who  hold  the  truth  in  unrighteousness."  This  revelation 
is  here  called  "God's  truth,"  and  the  implication  is  that 
this  truth  may  be  perverted  or  mixed  with  error  or  un- 
righteousness of  men.  "Who  hold  the  truth  in  unright- 
eousness" is  a  strong  putting  of  the  case.  Paul  charges 
men  with  this  crime  when  he  says,  "They  changed  the 
truth  of  God  into  a  lie  or  idolatry."  Men  in  power,  in  the 
past  and  the  present,  have  been  known  to  connive  at  sin 
and  wrong-doing  for  some  personal  advantage.  If  the 
truth  had  not  been  revealed  to  the  world,  men  could  not 
have  made  a  wrong  use  of  it;  they  could  not  change  what 
they  had  not. 

Paul  goes  on  to  say  (verse  19)  :  "Because  that  which 
may  be  known  of  God  is  manifest  in  them."  A  conscience 
or  knowledge  of  right  and  wrong  is  inborn  in  man,  as 
certainly  as  instinct  is  inborn  in  animals,  "for  God  hath 
shown  it  unto  them."  Verse  20:  "For  the  invisible  things 
of  God  from  the  creation  of  the  world  are  clearly  seen, 
being  understood  by  the  things  that  are  made,  even  His 
eternal  power  and  Godhead,  so  that  they  are  without  ex- 
cuse."   Since  God  gave  man  a  moral  or  religious  nature, 


140  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

and  then  gave  a  law  suited  to  that  nature  with  all  needed 
information  concerning  its  use,  if  he  goes  wrong  he  "is 
without  excuse,"  be  he  heathen  or  Christian.  If  God  had 
not  given  the  Gentiles  equal  opportunities  with  the  Jews, 
they  certainly  would  have  been  excusable  had  no  such 
light  been  given,  for  he  here  affirms  that  the  heathen  "are 
without  excuse." 

It  is  clearly  affirmed,  too,  by  the  apostle  with  such  a 
nature  and  endowments,  "man  as  a  moral  being,  made  in 
the  image  of  God,"  and  a  Divine  revelation  added,  that  he 
is  competent  to  apprehend  in  a  large  measure  "the  invis- 
ible things  of  God,  His  eternal  power  and  Godhead,"  so 
that  if  he  will  not  use  these  powers  or  endowments,  or 
abuses  them,  he  will  be  "without  excuse."  The  eye 
matches  the  light  no  more  certainly  than  that  man  was 
made  to  know  God.  If  he  holds  the  truth  in  unrighteous- 
ness, or  changes  the  truth  of  God  into  a  lie,  he  is  account- 
able. Remember  the  younger  son  in  the  parable  was  not 
excusable,  nor  did  he  attempt  to  excuse  himself  for  his 
wayward  and  sinful  course;  but  met  his  father  with  the 
confession,  "I  have  sinned  against  heaven  and  before  thee, 
and  am  not  worthy  to  be  called  thy  son;"  so  we  find  the 
heathen  nations  when  coming  to  themselves,  as  it  was, 
with  the  prodigal;  so  the  heathen  with  the  return  of  the 
abused  light  are  glad  to  return  to  their  Father's  house, 
which  they  had  deliberately  left  in  the  dark  past. 

Verses  21-23:  "Because  when  they  knew  God  they 
glorified  Him  not  as  God,  neither  were  thankful;  but  be- 
came vain  in  their  imaginations,  and  their  foolish  heart 
was  darkened.  Professing  themselves  to  be  wise,  they 
became  fools  and  changed  the  glory  of  the  uncorruptible 
God  into  an  image  made  like  a  corruptible  man,  and  to 
birds  and  four-footed  beasts  and  creeping  things." 

Here  is  a  true  history  of  idolatry.  Here  is  its  Genesis, 
revealed  in  fie  conduct  of  men ;  a  religion  perverted  from 
what  was  originally  pure  and  Godlike.  It  is  important 
to  keep  in  mind  that  Paul  is  speaking  to  a  Church  re- 
cently rescued  from  base  idolatry.  It  was  not  a  debatable 
question;  all  that  was  needed  was  to  state  the  facts  with 


LOST  LIGHT  OF  HEATHEN  NATIONS.     141 

which  they  were  familiar  and  conversant.  Some  of  these 
converts  were  intelligent  and  cultured  Romans;  and  had 
Paul  not  stated  the  palpable  facts  of  history  they  would 
have  confronted  him.  Nor  did  any  of  the  philosophers 
of  that  day,  so  far  as  appears,  undertake  to  refute  his 
arraignment  of  idolatry  as  to  its  origin.  It  must  be  clearly 
apparent  that  the  learned  and  logical  apostle  of  the  Gen- 
tile Church  takes  decisive  ground  against  the  Darwinian 
theory  so  much  lauded  by  the  materialistic  philosophy  of 
the  present  day.  It  looks  a  little  as  though  he  anticipated 
this  philosophical  heresy  so  dogmatically  stated  and  urged 
on  a  very  slender  probability.  It  has  the  appearance  not 
a  little  like  a  philosophical  idolatry,  in  the  light  of  the 
experience  of  at  least  the  last  six  thousand  years,  in  na- 
ture's uniform  and  invariable  operation  of  law  in  the  ani- 
mal kingdom.  You  can  see  that  Paul  has  no  sympathy 
with  the  evolution  theory  that  Christianity  is  the  outcome 
after  millions  of  ages  from  gross  idolatry  and  from  the 
senseless  myth  of  paganism.  He  stands  squarely  on  the 
Scriptural  doctrine,  that  man  was  created  in  the  image  of 
God,  and  that  he  fell  from  that  high  estate  deliberately 
and  knowingly,  and  is  now  under  a  scheme  of  redemption 
and  recovery  under  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the  only  sys- 
tem of  evolution  for  the  lapsed  condition  of  the  race 
that  he  stands  on.  The  Bible  declaration  that  man  is  a 
fallen  being,  is  amply  and  demonstrably  proved  by  the  his- 
tory of  nations  and  individuals  in  the  last  sixty  centuries; 
that  is,  from  a  state  of  innocence  to  a  state  of  sin  and 
vicious  practices,  is  as  true  and  certain  as  sunlight  and 
darkness.  We  do  not  need  a  Bible  to  prove  this  self- 
evident  truth.  Profane  history  is  in  perfect  accord  with 
the  Bible.  The  rise  and  fall  of  nations,  and  the  most 
virtuous  and  cultured,  are  in  evidence  of  the  sorrowful 
truth.  If  only  it  were  true  of  barbarous  and  uncivilized 
nations  it  might  be  questioned,  but  the  foremost  nations  of 
the  past  for  culture  and  wealth  are  no  exception.  Instance 
Egypt,  Babylon,  Carthage,  Rome,  and  the  classic  Greece, 
after  a  proud  golden  age  went  down  to  ignominy  and  dis- 
grace.   In  more  modern  times  we  have  Spain,  who  three 


142  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

hundred  years  ago  was  one  of  the  first,  foremost,  and  cul- 
tured nations  of  the  world,  as  a  world  power,  but  has  gone 
down  to  a  third-rate  power.  Do  you  ask  the  cause  ?  The 
answer  is  at  hand,  corruption  in  Church  and  State. 
Drunken  with  power  and  disregard  of  righteousness, 
France  a  century  ago  came  near  the  verge  of  destruction 
by  her  infidelity  and  vices.  Love  of  power  and  lust  of 
gold  give  birth  to  luxurious  living  and  vicious  indulgence, 
and  are  the  sure  precursors  of  decay  and  death,  or  we 
greatly  misinterpret  history.  "Righteousness  exalteth  a 
nation,  but  sin  is  a  reproach  to  any  people,"  is  a  Bible 
statement  that  is  as  true  and  certain  as  gravitation.  How 
slow  the  world  is  to  accept  this  well-established  truth, 
applicable  alike  to  nations  and  individuals ! 

A  few  months  ago  a  prominent  Unitarian  minister  by 
the  name  of  Savage,  who  has  accepted  evolution  as  taught 
by  Haeckel  and  Spencer,  made  this  public  announcement : 
That  the  fall  of  man,  as  taught  in  the  Bible,  is  an  absurd 
fable,  without  any  foundation  in  fact.  Any  man  who  de- 
liberately makes  such  a  declaration  in  the  light  and  glare 
of  human  history  and  in  the  face  of  the  facts  that  daily 
stare  him  in  the  face,  must  "love  darkness  rather  than 
light,"  because  he  has  lost,  his  way  through  spiritual 
blindness;  like  a  bat  or  owl  he  sees  best  in  the  dark. 
What  is  the  meaning  of  our  courts  of  justice,  our 
jails  and  penitentiaries,  and  the  slums  of  vice?  The 
inmates  of  these  were  a  short  time  ago  innocent  children 
in  our  homes,  in  homes  of  civilization  and  culture,  some 
of  them  Christian  homes.  What  has  happened  to  these 
innocent  boys  and  girls,  that  we  should  say  they  are  fallen 
men  and  women?  And  all  this  is  occurring  hourly  and 
daily  in  Christian  America,  where  such  activity  is  mani- 
fested by  Christian  men  and  women  and  philanthropists 
to  throw  around  them  safeguards  to  prevent  them  from 
going  to  destruction;  and  then  after  they  have  so  sadly 
fallen  are  putting  forth  almost  superhuman  efforts  to 
recover  them.  Is  it  possible,  in  the  glare  of  such  stub- 
born facts,  any  sane  man  or  professed  minister  of  Christ 
can  believe  that  the  fall  of  man  is  a  fiction  of  a  disordered 


LOST  LIGHT  OF  HEATHBN  NATIONS.     143 

brain  ?  He  is  certainly  amenable  to  the  charge,  that  dark- 
ness is  preferable  to  daylight  facts.  The  history  of  this 
world,  so  far  as  it  reaches  back  and  has  been  preserved, 
has  been  largely  a  history  of  sad  and  terrible  relapses, 
both  of  nations  and  individuals. 

It  is  mightily  in  the  face  of  the  Darwinian  theory  in 
its  negative  aspects.  I  can  accept  heartily  the  Theistic 
Evolution  of  the  Bible  as  a  reformatory  measure  for  a 
disordered  world  made  so  by  sin;  it  teaches  the  survival 
of  the  fittest,  but  is  a  fitness  made  so  by  righteousness  and 
regeneration. 

I  feel  impelled  just  here  to  call  your  attention  to  a  fact 
that  came  under  my  personal  observation.  About  thirty 
years  ago,  while  traveling  my  district  in  California,  I  was 
overtaken  by  night  in  a  wilderness  or  forest,  and  came  to 
a  log  house  occupied  by  a  white  man  and  Digger  Indian 
woman.  They  had  three  or  four  children,  and  were  living 
as  man  and  wife.  I  asked  for  lodging  for  the  night  for 
myself  and  horse.  He  gruffly  replied  that  he  guessed  I 
might  stay.  As  he  stood  in  the  doorway  with  the  light 
from  within  falling  upon  him,  I  thought  he  was  about  the 
hardest  specimen  of  a  white  man  that  it  ever  was  my  mis- 
fortune to  look  on.  His  hair  was  long  and  shaggy,  his 
person  filthy;  his  clothing  was  in  keeping  with  his  personal 
appearance.  I  think  a  well  or  poorly  dressed  ape  would 
have  been  a  good  portrait  of  this  man.  Of  course,  it  did 
not  speak  well  'of  his  intelligence,  and  I  would  not  expect 
any  more  from  him  than  I  would  from  any  very  common 
Digger  Indian.  Indeed,  the  Indian  woman,  who  was 
dressed  in  a  modest  calico  dress,  in  personal  appearance 
was  his  superior.  While  he  was  caring  for  my  horse  I 
happened  to  see  a  paper  on  a  table  in  the  room.  I  was 
surprised  to  find  a  paper  under  such  surroundings,  and 
read  while  the  woman  was  preparing  some  supper  for  me. 
The  paper  was  printed  in  Boston,  and  its  title  was,  as  I 
now  remember,  The  Truth  Seeker.  I  was  curious  to 
know  how  this  could  be.  It  was  an  infidel  sheet,  and  I 
found  it  was  bitter  against  the  Bible  and  Christianity  gen- 
erally.   As  I  continued  to  read  my  eye  fell  on  an  article 


144  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

from  Colonel  Robert  Ingersoll,  and  it  proved  to  be  a 
characteristic  letter  from  him  against  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  for  forbidding  the  transmission  of  ob- 
scene literature  through  the  mails.  I  did  not  wonder  much 
at  this  coming  from  the  Colonel.  But  how  such  persons 
as  the  head  of  this  family  could  be  interested  or  able  to 
comprehend  the  questions  discussed  in  this  paper  excited 
my  curiosity.  This  man,  after  the  fashion  of  illiterate 
persons,  was  profane  and  vulgar  even  to  disgust.  But  as 
I  continued  to  pass  that  way  frequently,  I  made  it  my  busi- 
ness to  inquire  of  others  about  this  man,  and  found  to 
my  very  great  surprise  that  he  was  a  graduate  either  of 
Harvard  or  Yale.  I  am  not  positive  which.  This  an- 
nouncement explained  the  presence  of  that  paper.  It  was 
further  intimated  that  he  had  been  considered  a  bright 
man,  and  a  man  of  some  promise.  The  supposition  of 
some  was  that  he  was  a  fugitive  from  justice,  and  was 
sailing  under  an  alias,  and  to  conceal  himself  he  had 
chosen  this  isolated  life  to  escape  the  clutches  of  the  law. 
Whatever  the  fact  was  of  his  present  degradation  and 
manner  of  life,  this  case  shows  how  short  a  time  is  neces- 
sary to  devolnte  a  man  who  doubtless  was  once  the  pride 
and  hope  of  some  fond  father  and  mother  to  the  level  of 
a  degraded  Digger  Indian.  A  blasted  reputation  of  an 
educated  American  citizen  to  nearly  the  state  of  monkey- 
hood  in  less  than  thirty  years !  These  significant  facts  in 
life  completely  shatter  the  theory  that  long  ages  are  neces- 
sary to  develop  or  produce  a  species  or  tribe.  Nations  and 
individuals  rise  quickly  and  go  down  quickly  compared  to 
the  Darwinian  theory.  An  abandoned  sinner  under  the 
gospel  may  be  and  is  often  saved  in  an  hour. 

Paul's  life  as  a  persecutor  and  murderer  was  changed 
suddenly,  and  the  current  turned  in  the  direction  of  saving 
men  and  not  destroying  them.  This  is  Theistic  Evolu- 
tion, and  the  only  evolution  worthy  of  claiming  man's 
supreme  attention. 

I  now  feel  strongly  inclined  to  attempt  a  comparison 
of  the  theory  of  Darwin  and  the  Bible  account  of  man's 
Genesis.     Mr.  Darwin's  maturer  views,  for  he  at  first 


LOST  LIGHT  OF  HEATHEN  NATIONS.     145 

admitted  God  started  the  race  with  one  or  two  beings, 
may  be  summed  up  in  a  few  words;  namely,  the  origin  of 
all  animals  and  man  came  from  a  small  protoplasm  or 
germ,  Huxley  called  it  sea-ooze,   something  resembling 
frog  spawn;  all  living  animals  of  past  ages  and  present 
came  from  this  original  spawn  or  ooze,  and  through  a  long 
series  of  evolutions;  the  thousands  and  probably  millions 
of  species  of  known  and  unknown  tribes  of  living  animals 
came  from  this  one  germ  or  protoplasm;  and  in  the  final 
triumphant  outcome,  we  have  an  intelligent,  accountable, 
and   immortal  being  called   man,   "little   lower   than   the 
angels  of  God."    To  accomplish  this  marvelous  and  tran- 
scendent feat  cost  the  Creator  of  our  world  millions  of 
ages  to  consummate  this  work.    You  observe  He  only  had 
to  create  one  germ  or  protoplasm.     You  see  how  much 
was  contained  in  that  single  little  lump  of  sea-ooze  to 
people  this  world  for  millions  of  ages  with  living  beings 
and  all  the  generations  of  men  who  have  come  and  gone 
under  the  law  of  "the   survival  of  the   fittest."     There 
must  have  been  a  tremendous  waste  of  time  and  life  in 
these  ages;  and  if  all  this  was  done  for  the  sole  and  im- 
portant purpose  of  giving  the  world  a  perfect  man,  or 
specimen  of  God's  skill  and  power,  it  seems  a  great  waste 
of  precious  time  and  of  infinite  suffering  of  innocent  ani- 
mals and  men,  who  had  not  the  strength  to  cope  with  their 
stronger  enemies  because  only  the  fit  can  survive  on  this 
theory  or  ought  to  survive.     I  am  somewhat  dazed  with 
this  puzzle  of  Darwin  and  Hackel.     If  some  skilled  me- 
chanics proposed  to  build  a  splendid  engine  that  in  the 
coming  century  could  haul  a  thousand  cars  over  plains 
and  mountains,  should  select  a  lump  of  iron  and  begin 
by  making  a  little  whirligig,  and  run  through  all  the  little 
machines  imaginable  that  had  no  resemblance  to  the  one 
intended  ultimately,  for  his  final  purpose  and  reason  that 
these  antecedent  steps  or  evolutions  were  absolutely  neces- 
sary to  the  perfect  machine,  would  such  a  procedure  re- 
dound to  the  inventor's  honor,  or  his  skill  be  enhanced 
in  the  esteem  of  intelligent  men,  if  it  were  admitted  that 
the  inventor's  ability  and  skill  were  equal  to  the  task  with- 
10 


146  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

out  all  this  roundabout  and  endless  and  needless  expend- 
iture of  time  and  waste  of  material  ?  And  add  to  this  that 
in  carrying  out  this  scheme  millions  of  lives  had  to 
be  sacrificed  in  order  to  get  the  ultimate  perfect  engine 
that  could  have  been  built  in  a  less  time  by  a  more  and 
direct  procedure.  I  suspect  that  no  candid  or  honest  evo- 
lutionist would  or  could  be  found  who  would  take  the 
ground  that  the  Creator  of  our  world  had  not  the  power 
to  have  created  each  known  species  of  living  animals 
and  man  as  we  now  find  them  in  an  immeasurably  shorter 
time  than  they  claim  that  their  theory  requires,  had  He 
so  determined.  We  have  our  choice  left  us  to  accept 
Moses'  account  or  Darwin's  in  the  light  of  God's  pro- 
cedure in  the  last  six  thousand  years. 

The  evolution  theory  is  an  astounding  reflection  on 
the  Creator's  wisdom,  skill,  ability,  and  humane  character. 
I  do  not  wonder  that  Haeckel,  the  atheist,  in  his  latest 
book  calls  our  world  in  the  light  of  his  philosophy,  "The 
Puzzle  of  the  Universe."  He  will  never  be  able  to  solve 
it  by  his  theory,  and  make  it  plain  by  positive  and  demon- 
strative facts  by  the  inductive  method. 

The  more  I  dwell  upon  the  Darwinian  hypothesis  in 
the  light  and  experience  of  the  last  sixty  centuries  the  more 
it  looks  like  a  stupendous  superstition.  It  seems  built  on 
a  doubtful  and  suspicious  probability,  to  say  the  most  of  it. 
I  was  charged  four  or  five  years  ago  in  this  city  (Spokane) 
by  a  certain  Unitarian  clergyman  with  whom  I  had  a  dis- 
cussion, with  "camping  with  Moses."  I  plead  guilty,  and 
feel  greatly  honored  by  the  high  compliment.  I  am  glad 
to  camp  with  Moses,  and  such  scholars  as  Moses  and  Paul. 
Moses  graduated  in  the  first  university  of  cultured  Egypt, 
and  Paul  was  a  pupil  of  the  celebrated  "Gamaliel,  a  Doctor 
of  the  Law."  It  is  very  doubtful  if  they  have  any  peers 
in  this  day  and  age. 

When  Paul  visited  Athens,  the  literary  and  scientific 
center  of  classic  Greece,  the  Epicurean  and  Stoic  phi- 
losophers "encountered  him,"  for  all  the  Athenians  and 
strangers  which  were  there  (probably  from  the  literary 
centers)  spent  their  time  in  nothing  else,  but  either  to  tell 


LOST  LIGHT  OF  HEATHEN  NATIONS.     147 

or  hear  some  new  thing.  "Then  Paul  stood  in  the  midst 
of  Mars'  Hill  and  said:  "Ye  men  of  Athens,  I  perceive 
that  in  all  things  ye  are  too  superstitious.  For  as  I  passed 
by  and  beheld  your  devotions,  I  found  an  altar  with  this 
inscription,  To  the  Unknown  God.  Whom  therefore  ye 
ignorantly  worship,  Him  declare  I  unto  you.  God  that 
made  the  world  and  all  things  therein,  seeing  He  is  Lord 
of  heaven  and  earth."     (Acts  xvii,  16-24.) 

These  philosophers  were  very  much  like  such  phi- 
losophers as  Darwin,  Huxley,  Spencer,  and  other  repre- 
sentative scientists,  who  spent  their  time  in  nothing  else 
than  "evolution,"  so  that  they  have  erected  an  altar  to 
Agnosticism,  which  may  fitly  be  called  "their  Unknown 
God,"  whom  they  worship.  This  is  their  idol.  This  lan- 
guage seems  almost  prophetic  of  our  times. 

An  exclusive  study  of  matter  strongly  leads  to  skepti- 
cism as  to  a  spiritual  world,  not  necessarily,  but  such  is 
painfully  true  with  many  otherwise  worthy  and  honorable 
men,  men  who  have  contributed  valuable  knowledge  to 
the  world.  What  greatly  surprises  me  is,  that  so  many 
clergymen  to-day  are  running  after  this  fad  lest  they  be 
classed  with  those  "who  are  camping  with  Moses  and 
Paul."  There  has  been  so  much  said  and  written  about 
"philosophic  culture  and  scholarship"  in  connection  with 
Evolution,  that  one  might  begin  to  think  that  nobody  but 
evolutionists  were  scholars;  but  I  can  assure  you  that 
there  are  more  than  seven  thousand  who  have  not  bowed 
the  knee  to  this  new  Baal.  I  am  proud  to  number  myself 
among  this  minority,  if  it  be  in  fact  a  minority. 

Had  I  time  I  could  bring  valuable  information  from 
recent  explorations  from  Nineveh  and  Babylon  in  archae- 
ology confirmatory  of  the  Bible  account  of  Creation  and 
the  Sacred  History,  but  this  essay  or  sermon  is  already 
too  long. 


148  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

INTRODUCTION  OF  MORAL  EVIL  INTO  OUR 

WORLD. 

IvECTure  to  Students. 

This  subject  has  been  fruitful  of  extensive  and  bitter 
controversy  for  many  centuries  past.  It  is  a  subject  that 
troubles  many  well-meaning  persons  at  the  present. 
Young  Christians  and  many  who  favor  Christianity  are 
annoyed  with  it,  and  at  a  loss  to  answer  the  many  objec- 
tions brought  against  the  Bible  account  of  it.  How  to 
reconcile  the  permission  of  our  First  Parents'  sin  with 
the  goodness  and  justice  of  God  is  what  they  are  puzzled 
to  do;  yet  they  feel  confident  that  somehow  or  other  God 
must  be  both  good  and  just.  To  remove  some  of  these 
perplexities,  and  answer  some  of  the  infidel  aspersions  cast 
upon  the  Divine  glory,  is  the  design  of  the  present  lecture. 
Since  many  of  the  greatest  minds  of  the  past  and  present 
have  given  their  best  energies  and  talents  to  the  solution 
of  this  intricate  problem,  and  have  failed  to  satisfy  all,  it 
would  be  the  height  of  presumption  in  us  to  promise,  or 
even  intimate,  that  we  shall  be  able  to  free  the  subject 
from  all  of  the  perplexities  surrounding  it.  If  we  shall  be 
able  to  remove  some  of  the  graver  difficulties  encumbering 
it,  our  purpose  will  have  been  accomplished.  We  hope  not 
to  awaken  an  expectation  that  we  shall  not  be  able  to 
satisfy. 

The  Scripture  account  of  the  introduction  of  sin  into 
this  our  world  is  straightforward,  succinct,  and  given 
with  an  air  of  honesty  that  challenges  our  credence. 
There  is  nothing  at  all  improbable  in  the  account  thereof. 
The  account  given  us  of  the  Fall  is  so  familiar  with  us  all, 
that  we  will  not  spend  time  to  quote  or  particularize.  We 
will  simply  use  Paul's  laconic  and  all-comprehensive  state- 
ment of  it  as  the  proposition  or  basis  of  this  whole  ques- 
tion, namely :  "Wherefore,  as  by  one  man,  sin  entered  into 
the  world,  and  death  by  sin;  and  death  passed  upon  all 
men."     (Rom.  v,  12.) 

It  ought  to  be  remarked,  that  some  of  the  objections 
we  propose  combating  get  no  little  of  their  strength  and 


INTRODUCTION  OF  MORAL  EVIL.         149 

plausibility  from  doctrines  held  by  a  respectable  part  of 
the  Christian  Church,  and  from  some  concessions  made 
by  the  Christian  world  generally.  Such  is  the  doctrine  of 
Necessity;  or  that  whatever  comes  to  pass  was  predeter- 
mined by  God;  that  because  God  foreknows  all  things, 
therefore  they  come  to  pass  because  He  foresees  them; 
and  that  because  God  is  omnipotent  He  can  perform  things 
that  are  manifestly  contradictory  in  themselves.  To  sat- 
isfy you  that  this  is  not  bare  assertion,  allow  us  briefly 
to  quote  the  views  of  some  good  and  great  men  whom  we 
revere  and  love  for  their  excellences :  The  sweet-spirited 
Melanchthon  says  in  his  Comments  on  Romans,  that  "God 
wrought  all  things,  evil  as  well  as  good ;  he  was  the  Author 
of  David's  adultery  and  the  treason  of  Judas,  as  well  as 
of  Paul's  conversion."  Luther  calls  "the  foreknowledge 
of  God  a  thunderbolt  to  dash  the  doctrine  of  free-will  to 
atoms."  Dick,  the  theologian,  says :  "If  our  volitions  be 
foreseen,  we  can  no  more  avoid  them  than  we  can  pluck 
the  sun  out  of  the  heavens."  How  such  views  can  be  made 
consistent  with  Divine  justice  and  goodness,  and  with  the 
facts  and  the  experiences  of  most  men  touching  the  volun- 
tary character  of  their  actions,  requires  a  credulity  that  we 
confess  ourselves  total  strangers  to.  Now  how  can  those 
entertaining  the  above  views  meet  this  celebrated  argu- 
ment of  the  infidel  Cudworth?  "The  supposed  Deity  of 
the  world  was  either  willing  to  abolish  all  evils,  but  not 
able;  or  he  was  able,  but  not  willing.  This  latter  is  the 
only  thing  that  answers  fully  to  the  notion  of  a  God.  Now 
the  supposed  Creator  of  all  things  was  not  thus  both  able 
and  willing  to  abolish  all  evils  is  plain,  because  there  would 
have  been  no  evils  at  all  left.  Wherefore,  since  there  is 
such  a  deluge  of  evils  overflowing  all,  it  must  needs  be 
that  either  He  was  willing  and  not  able  to  remove  them, 
and  then  He  was  impotent;  or  else  He  was  able  and  not 
willing,  and  then  He  was  envious;  or  lastly,  He  was 
neither  able  nor  willing,  and  then  He  was  both  impotent 
and  envious."  The  real  difficulty  in  this  argument  can 
not  be  met  by  the  advocates  of  necessity.  The  reason  of 
this  is,  their  system  is  based  on  a  false  psychology  or 


150  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

division  of  the  human  mind.  The  Will  and  Affections 
have  been  confounded  by  them,  or  rendered  identical. 
There  are  three  divisions  in  the  human  mind,  instead  of 
two,  viz. :  the  Intellect,  the  Affections,  and  the  Will.  This 
natural  division  is  now  held  by  the  first  mental  phi- 
losophers of  the  day.  This  division,  if  attended  to,  will 
go  far  to  establish  the  freedom  of  the' Will  and  lay  a  sure 
foundation  for  vindicating  the  Divine  holiness  and  good- 
ness from  the  irreverent  imputations  and  sophistical  argu- 
ments of  infidelity. 

The  offices  of  these  different  faculties,  when  applied 
to  these  powers  of  the  mind,  will  be  found  to  apply  to 
them  in  a  widely  different  sense.  To  illustrate  this,  sup- 
pose that  some  article  of  food  be  presented  to  the  intellect. 
Now  if  the  intellect  takes  cognizance  of  this  food  at  all, 
its  decisions  are  positively  necessitated.  It  must  see  that 
there  is  so  much,  that  it  is  of  such  a  kind,  that  it  is  of 
such  a  color  and  figure.  Such  a  decision  it  can  not  but 
make.  Suppose  now  this  same  article  of  food  be  brought 
before  the  Affections,  as  for  instance  the  appetites  or 
desirive  nature.  It  of  necessity  will  experience  certain 
drawings  towards  the  food;  that  is,  certain  emotions  will 
be  awakened.  A  desire  to  eat  will  be  the  consequence. 
This  is  a  matter  of  stern  necessity.  The  appetites  can  not 
avoid  giving  such  affections  or  emotions.  But  bring  the 
same  article  of  food  before  the  Will  for  its  decision.  Now 
it  must  be  evident  to  every  one  who  has  any  knowledge 
of  the  workings  of  his  mind,  that  there  is  not  any  such 
compulsion  or  necessity,  that  the  Will  should  refuse  or 
choose  this  food  that  there  was  in  the  former  cases.  All 
the  philosophizing  in  the  world  can  not  set  aside  the  ex- 
perience of  men  on  this  point.  It  is  a  matter  of  almost 
universal  consciousness  that  this  is  so,  however  difficult 
it  may  be  to  satisfactorily  explain  it.  The  first  and  second 
instances  are  not  properly  speaking  the  acts  of  man — or 
at  least  moral  acts — in  the  same  sense  that  the  choice 
or  rejection  of  the  food  by  the  Will  is.  Here  it  is  that 
human  liberty  is  to  be  found.  It  is  in  the  region  of  the 
Will,  and  not  in  the   Intellectual  or  Desirive   Natures. 


INTRODUCTION  OF  MORAL  EVIL.         151 

It  is  this  determining  power  of  the  Will  that  renders 
actions  properly  our  own,  and  gives  them  the  character 
of  being  good  or  bad,  virtuous  or  vicious.  Apply  this 
simple  test  to  the  temptation  of  our  First  Parents,  and 
it  is  quite  an  easy  thing  to  see  that  they  had  the  power 
of  resisting  or  yielding  to  the  seductive  temptation  of 
the  fallen  Angel.  The  act  was  purely  their  own,  and  not 
necessitated.  It  was  this  that  stamped  their  act  with  such 
enormity  and  flagrancy.  Had  their  act  herein  been  neces- 
sitated, it  had  not  been  virtuous  in  them  to  have  main- 
tained their  integrity  nor  sinful  to  have  yielded  to  what 
they  could  not  avoid  by  a  stern,  unalterable  decree.  It  is 
no  marvel  then  that  the  pious  Necessitarian  can  not  rescue 
himself  from  the  logic  of  the  infidel,  so  long  as  he  bases 
his  doctrine  on  a  false  psychology  or  division  of  the  mind. 
We  conceive  that  these  views  of  the  Necessitarian,  which 
are  not  only  at  war  with  the  Divine  goodness  and  justice, 
but  also  with  human  experience,  lend  a  potency  to  the 
arguments  of  the  enemies  of  Christianity,  that  they  never 
could  have  had  for  them. 

Let  us  examine  this  celebrated  argument  of  the  skeptic 
by  this  rational  division  of  the  mind,  and  see  what  its  real 
strength  and  weight  is.  We  have  no  desire  to  under- 
estimate this  argument,  therefore  we  will  state  it  in  its 
fullest  strength.  The  better  to  understand  it,  we  will  give 
it  again.  It  is  substantially  this :  Sin  exists.  This  is  ad- 
mitted on  all  hands.  It  exists  by  the  permission  of  God. 
This  God  is  held  to  be  a  Being  of  infinite  perfections. 
It  is  also  admitted  that  sin  is  that  detestable  thing  which 
God  hates.  It  is  also  granted  that  sin  is  the  cause  of 
nearly  all  the  misery  and  sorrow  known  in  our  world. 
Now,  why  did  God  create  a  being  who  by  the  abuse  of 
his  liberty  would  infallibly  entail  such  a  calamity  upon 
all  his  posterity?  Now,  the  Creater  was  either  willing, 
but  not  able  to  prevent  the  introduction  of  sin  into  our 
world;  or  else  He  was  able,  but  not  willing  or  else  He 
was  both  able  and  willing.  No  other  view  will  fill  our 
notion  of  God.  He  has  not  prevented  it;  therefore  He 
was  unable  or  unwilling,  or  both.    If  unable  to  prevent  it, 


152  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

then  He  is  not  omnipotent  as  held ;  if  unwilling,  then  His 
love  of  holiness  is  not  infinite. 

Let  it  again  be  repeated  that  concessions  have  been 
made  by  the  Christian  world  to  this  famous  argument 
that  neither  truth  nor  justice  required.  One  of  these  con- 
cessions is  this:  //  God  be  omnipotent  He  could  easily 
have  prevented  the  introduction  of  moral  evil  into  our 
world.  This  should  never  have  been  admitted.  It  is  not 
true,  as  we  hope  to  show,  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  em- 
ployed. The  sophism  in  this  argument  lies  in  this  state- 
ment: that  if  God  be  omnipotent  He  could  easily  have 
prevented  sin.  It  is  not  true  that  omnipotence  can  do  all 
things  on  the  broad  sense  that  this  premise  assumes.  We 
deny  the  premise,  and  shall  attempt  to  show  that  it  is 
false  and  deceptive.  There  are  some  things — we  say  it 
reverently — that  Omnipotence  can  not  do.  He  can  not 
perform  a  contradiction.  Everything  else  this  God  of 
ours  can  do.  Nor  does  it  lower  His  omnipotence  in 
our  estimation  in  the  least,  that  it  can  not  work  a  contra- 
diction. Does  it  not  rather  heighten  our  regards  of  Him, 
that  He  can  not?  It  is  the  glory  of  this  Being  that  He 
is  consistent  with  Himself.  Inconsistency  is  an  attribute 
of  weakness,  and  not  of  power.  Those  who  can  admire 
a  God  who  is  capable  of  contradicting  Himself  may  do  so; 
but  we  prefer  one  who  is  not  quite  so  omnipotent  as  all 
that.  The  strongest  argument  that  could  be  brought 
against  the  power  and  perfections  of  Jehovah  would  be 
that  He  is  capable  of  performing  a  contradiction. 

Let  us  take  a  few  examples  illustrative  of  this  position. 
It  were  impossible  for  God  to  give  to  a  square  the  prop- 
erties of  a  circle,  or  to  a  circle  the  properties  of  a  square. 
Or  it  would  be  impossible  for  God  to  make  two  and  two 
equal  five.  Nor  could  Omnipotence  make  a  triangle  to 
possess  more  than  two  right  angles.  Not  that  it  is  less 
than  the  power  of  Omnipotence  to  do  such  an  act,  but 
because  it  is  utterly  inconsistent  or  contradictory  for  an 
infinitely  wise  and  powerful  Being  to  work  in  such  an  ab- 
surd manner.  The  remarks  of  a  late  writer  on  this  point 
are  so  apposite  and  well  expressed  that  we  will  give  them 


INTRODUCTION  OF  MORAL  EVIL.         153 

in  his  own  words :  "As  contradictions  are  impossible  in 
themselves,  so  to  say  that  God  could  perform  them  would 
not  be  to  magnify  His  power;  but  to  expose  our  own 
absurdity.  When  we  affirm  that  Omnipotence  can  not 
cause  a  thing  to  be,  and  not  to  be  at  one  and  the  same  time, 
or  can  not  make  two  and  two  equal  five,  we  do  not  set 
limits  to  it;  we  simply  declare  that  such  things  are  not  the 
objects  of  power.  A  circle  can  not  be  made  to  possess 
the  properties  of  a  square,  nor  a  square  the  properties  of 
a  circle.  Infinite  power  can  not  confer  the  properties  of 
one  of  these  figures  upon  the  other,  not  because  it  is  less 
than  infinite  power,  but  because  it  is  not  within  the  nature, 
or  province,  or  dominion  of  power  to  perform  such  things ; 
to  embody  such  inherent  and  immutable  absurdities  in 
actual  existence.  In  regard  to  doing  of  such  things,  or 
rather  such  absurd  and  inconsiderable  nothings,  Omnipo- 
tence itself  possesses  no  advantages  over  weakness. 
Power  from  its  very  nature  and  essence  is  confined  to  the 
accomplishment  of  such  things  as  are  possible,  or  imply 
no  contradiction.  Hence  it  is  beyond  the  reach  of  almighty 
power  itself  to  break  up  and  confound  the  immutable 
foundations  of  reason  and  truth.  God  possesses  no  such 
unreasonable  power,  no  such  horribly  distorted  attribute, 
no  such  inconceivably  monstrous  imperfection  and  deform- 
ity of  nature  as  would  enable  Him  to  embody  absurdities 
and  contradictions  in  actual  existence.  It  is  one  of  the 
chief  excellencies  and  glories  of  the  Divine  nature  that  its 
infinite  power  works  within  a  sphere  of  light  and  love, 
without  the  least  tendency  to  break  over  the  sacred  bounds 
of  eternal  truth  into  the  outer  darkness  of  chaotic 
night  |M 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  no  sane  man  will  be  guilty  of  the 
weakness  of  asking  why  He  did  not  make  two  and  two 
equal  five,  or  why  He  did  not  make  a  circle  to  possess  the 
properties  of  a  square,  and  vice  versa;  or  why  He  did  not 
make  a  triangle  equal  to  three  right  angles  instead  of  two. 
Such  supremely  absurd  questions  never  enter  our  minds, 
because  it  is  simply  contradictory  to  suppose  for  a  moment 
that  a  thing  can  be  two  things  at  one  and  the  same  time. 


i54  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

It  is  casting  an  ungrateful  and  blasphemous  aspersion 
upon  infinite  wisdom  and  power  to  even  hint  at  such  an 
idea.    Now  the  enigma  of  moral  evil  in  our  world  as  held 
by  the  skeptic  is  just  one  of  these  absurd  contradictions. 
He  supposes  if  our  God  is  a  Being  of  omnipotent  energy 
He  could  have  prevented  the  introduction  of  sin  in  Para- 
dise.    We  join  issue,  and  say  that  our  Maker  could  not 
prevent  sin  coming  into  our  world  under  the  present  con- 
stitution of  things.     The  infidel  assumes  the  ground  that 
God  permitted  this  evil.     Now  it  is  nothing  short  of  a 
contradiction  or  a  misuse  of  terms  to  say  that  a  being 
permits  a  thing  that  does  not  come  within  the  range  of 
his  power.    As  has  been  wisely  said,  "Power  from  its  very 
nature  and  essence  is  confined  to  the  accomplishment  of 
such  things  as  are  possible,  or  imply  no  contradiction." 
But  it  may  be  asked,  Could  not  God  have  created  a  world 
of  moral  beings  and  placed  such  guards  around  it,  that  sin 
might  have  been  prevented?     We  answer  emphatically, 
No.    A  necessitated  holiness  or  virtue  would  be  no  holi- 
ness or  virtue  at  all.    If  God  could  have  so  circumstanced 
us  that  we  could  not  possibly  have   sinned,   then  there 
would  have  been  no  virtue  in  doing  what  we  could  not 
help.     Such  virtue — if  it  could  be  called  virtue — would 
not  be  ours,  but  God's,  for  it  would  not  flow  from  an  act 
of  our  own  will,  which  is  necessary  to  constitute  an  act 
of  our  own,  and  be  virtuous  or  vicious.     In  such  a  case 
we  would  have  been  virtuous  and  accountable  in  the  sense 
that  a  machine  is  said  to  act — by  some  extraneous  power 
or   force,   moving   only   as   acted   upon.     A  necessitated 
holiness,  then,  is  manifestly  a  contradiction  of  the  kind 
mentioned.     We  speak  confidently,  rationally,  and  rever- 
ently, then,  when  we  affirm  that  it  was  impossible  for  God 
to  prevent  moral  evil  under  the  present  constitution  and 
course  of  things.     For  Him  to  create  moral  agents  and 
then  counteract  their  voluntary  choice  would  have  been 
to  destroy  that  agency  and  to  render  man  a  mere  machine, 
or  to  have  made  him  both  a  moral  agent  and  not  a  moral 
agent,   which   is   a  palpable   contradiction.     This   would 
have  been  tantamount  to  blotting  out  His  own  work.    Such 


INTRODUCTION  OF  MORAL  EVIL.         155 

folly  as  this  would  not  do  credit  to  a  mere  fallible  man; 
how  infinitely  discreditable  and  dishonorable  then  to  the 
Great  Creator !  But  mark  the  statement  made  in  the 
Scripture  motto  selected  by  us  at  the  outset  touching  the 
introduction  of  sin  entered  into  this  our  world:  ''As  by 
one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin;  and 
so  death  passed  upon  all  men  for  that  all  have  sinned." 
Not  as  the  Necessitarian  would  have  it;  not  as  the  infidel 
would  have  it  by  God's  permission,  "but  by  man's."  It  is 
to  be  found  wholly  and  solely  in  man's  abuse  of  his  free 
agency.  Here  the  burden  lies,  here  is  where  all  the  guilt 
arose.  Infinite  holiness  and  goodness  are  entirely  exempt 
and  free  from  blame.  It  is  all  man's.  Milton  thus  states 
it;  and  there  is  as  much  pure  theology  in  it  as  poetry: 

"I  made  him  just  and  right; 
Sufficient  to  have  stood,  though  free  to  fall, 
Such  I  created  all  the  ethereal  powers 
And  spirits,  both  them  who  stood,  and  them  who  failed; 
Freely  they  stood  who  stood;  and  fell  who  fell." 

It  is  very  clear,  then,  that  it  was  impossible  for  God 
to  prevent  moral  evil  under  the  present  constitution  of 
things.  But  it  may  be  urged  by  the  infidel :  Why  did  He 
create  any  beings  at  all,  if  they  could  not  be  secured  from 
the  sad  consequences  of  falling?  Suppose  God  had  not 
made  any  moral  beings,  then  the  skeptic  would  have  urged 
that  He  could  not  make  a  moral  being  where  there  was 
no  liability  to  sin,  and  consequently  He  could  not  be 
omnipotent,  which  brings  us  back  to  the  point  that  God 
can  not  cause  a  thing  to  be  and  not  to  be  at  one  and  the 
same  time.  Such  a  contradiction  we  frankly  and  gladly 
confess  the  Being  whom  we  worship  is  incapable  of  per- 
forming. The  real  point  of  difficulty  in  this  argument 
we  think  is  answered,  but  there  is  one  which  lies  beyond 
this  and  entirely  disconnected  with  it  which  presents  a 
difficulty,  and  the  only  real  difficulty  in  this  whole  perplex- 
ing question.  Why  did  our  Maker  create  us  at  all,  if  the 
only  alternative  was  to  create  beings  liable  to  fall,  or  not 
to  create  any?     This  is  an  important  and  interesting  in- 


156  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

quiry,  and  we  shall  endeavor  to  answer  it  under  our  next 
proposition,  viz. : 

A  vindication  of  the  Divine  goodness  and  holiness  in 
creating  moral  agents  or  beings  liable  to  sin.  When  God 
finished  the  work  of  creation  by  crowning  it  with  His 
masterpiece,  moral  and  intellectual  man,  He  thus  spake 
of  that  work:  "And  God  saw  every  thing  He  had  made, 
and  behold  it  was  very  good."  The  most  eminent  Bible 
critics  tell  us  that  the  original  word  rendered  very  good 
signifies  superlatively,  or  only  good.  Who,  we  ask,  was 
more  competent  to  pronounce  such  judgment  than  the 
Great  Author  thereof?  He  who  understands  all  the  qual- 
ities, relations,  and  harmonies  of  universal  nature,  was 
that  the  finished  work  of  Creation  was  very  good,  super- 
latively so.  It  exhibits  an  uncommon  degree  of  assur- 
ance in  a  fallible  and  sinful  creature  to  oppose  his  ex- 
tremely imperfect  and  defective  judgment  to  that  of  his 
good  and  wise  Maker,  by  thus  arraigning  the  Sovereign 
of  the  universe  before  His  erring  tribunal,  and  charging 
great  imperfection  upon  His  works.  Such  every  man  does 
who  finds  fault  with  the  present  constitution  of  things. 
Nor  do  the  teachings  of  skeptics  relieve  the  train  of  moral 
evils  of  which  they  so  bitterly  complain.  Did  they,  there 
might  be  a  little  more  show  of  propriety  in  their  objec- 
tions. On  the  other  hand,  the  true  Christian  theist  pro- 
poses a  full  and  sufficient  remedy  for  all  the  evils  flesh  is 
heir  to,  in  the  grand  remedial  scheme  effected  by  Christ. 
In  view  of  this  glorious  scheme  of  redemption,  He  is  able 
to  construct  a  doctrine  of  optimism  or  the  greatest  good 
that  completely  answers  every  objection  of  the  dark  and 
cheerless  theory  of  atheism  can  possibly  hurl  against  the 
present  constitution  of  our  world. 

Now  admit — what  can  not  be  evaded — that  there  was 
left  this  only  alternative  with  God,  either  to  create  intelli- 
gent moral  agents  liable  to  fall,  or  not  to  create  any,  and 
the  vexed  question,  the  dark  enigma,  may  be  solved  with 
comparative  ease.  Some  one  of  the  Fathers  has  with 
as  much  truth  as  felicity  of  thought  and  diction  said  that 
"A  horse  that  has  gone  astray  is  a  more  noble  creature 


INTRODUCTION  OF  MORAL  EVIL.         157 

than  a  stone  which  has  no  power  to  go  astray.5'  So  a 
moral  agent,  though  there  is  implied  in  this  a  liability — 
not  a  necessity — to  go  astray,  is  a  far  more  noble  and 
exalted  being  than  a  non-moral  agent,  or  a  mere  machine, 
or  than  none  at  all.  This  world  without  moral  and  intelli- 
gent beings  would  bring  no  declarative  glory  and  honor  to 
its  Maker.  There  would  be  none  to  admire  and  praise  it 
or  its  Author.  The  mere  edifice  erected  by  the  architect 
would  be  as  capable  of  admiring  and  honoring  its  builder 
as  would  a  world  of  non-moral  agents.  A  world  destitute 
of  moral  beings  would  only  honor  and  magnify  its  Maker 
as  a  house  does  its  builder,  and  not  as  a  son  honors  his 
father.  This  is  probably  a  clear  distinction  between  the 
world  the  infidel  would  have  had  God  create  and  the  one 
He  has  given  us.  Who  in  his  sober  moments  could  desire 
such  a  world  as  that  must  be  ?  A  world  destitute  of  moral 
beings !  Is  it  too  much  to  say,  than  none  but  a  moral 
being  can  admire  the  works  and  character  of  God?  We 
think  not.  God  is  a  moral  Being  in  the  highest  sense 
of  the  term.  His  perfections  are  moral,  and  His  designs 
are  moral.  There  must  of  necessity  be  an  adaptation 
between  the  Being  to  be  admired  and  him  who  is  to  ad- 
mire; i.  e.,  this  admirer  must  have  a  moral  constitution 
to  perceive  that  which  is  moral.  It  would  be  as  rational 
to  think  of  seeing  without  vision,  or  of  hearing  without 
ear,  or  smelling  without  an  organ.  But  the  best  world 
the  skeptic  could  possibly  have,  were  moral  beings  blotted 
out  of  existence,  would  be  a  world  of  irrational  animals. 
We  need  not  ask  what  the  capabilities  of  horses,  cattle, 
and  swine  are  to  admire  the  works  and  character  of  their 
Maker.  Who  is  so  obtuse  as  not  to  see  that  man,  though 
liable  to  abuse  his  liberty,  is  infinitely  more  noble  and 
exalted  than  mere  animals?  But  add  to  this  the  gratify- 
ing fact  that  God  has  made  the  most  ample  provision  for 
the  complete  rectification  of  the  moral  evils  flowing  from 
the  abuse  of  this  liberty,  and  our  notions  of  the  Divine 
holiness  and  goodness  must  be  infinitely  heightened.  And 
He  has  done  all  this  too  without  lowering  the  dignity  and 
claims  of  His  moral  government.    Sin  has  been  punished, 


158  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

and  the  insulted  law  has  been  amply  magnified.  Nou 
God  can  be  just,  and  yet  justify  every  sinner  that  be- 
lieveth  in  Christ.  This  is  the  Bible  statement  of  this  whole 
question.  But  the  skeptic  holds  that  this  does  not  meet 
the  whole  difficulty.  He  maintains  that  it  is  inconsistent 
with  all  our  notions  of  holiness,  by  which  we  understand 
strict  justice,  to  punish  the  innocent  in  the  room  of  the 
guilty.  If  man  is  guilty  he  alone  must  suffer  for  his  guilt; 
another  may  not  suffer  for  him,  and  especially  an  innocent 
person.  Human  governments  have  not  the  right  to  punish 
the  innocent  instead  of  the  guilty,  though  the  innocent  one 
might  consent  to  pay  the  penalty.  And  if  human  govern- 
ments, which  are  fallible  and  defective,  would  consider 
it  an  enormity  to  punish  an  innocent  man  with  death  in 
the  place  of  the  guilty  wretch,  even  though  the  innocent 
person  should  freely  consent  thereto,  how  can  we  recon- 
cile such  an  act  with  the  justice  of  God,  who  is  infinitely 
good  and  holy?  This  objection,  we  confess,  looks  not  a 
little  plausible  when  viewed  out  of  its  true  relations.  Its 
very  plausibility  demands  that  we  should  consider  it.  Now 
the  objection  here  urged  that  human  governments  have 
no  right  to  accept  substitutional  punishment  is  not  true. 
Human  governments — and  the  best — accept  substitutional 
punishments  in  some  instances  where  the  substitution  is 
voluntary.  All  bails  and  securities  are  of  the  nature  of 
punishments.  If  it  be  wrong  in  the  extreme  case  where 
life  is  involved  or  great  physical  suffering  is  due,  it  is 
also  unjust  in  the  lower  sense  of  bail  and  security.  All 
punishment  in  earthly  governments  is  for  the  security  of 
government  or  society;  and  if  the  well  being  of  society 
can  be  attained  by  voluntary  substitution  of  punishment, 
we  know  no  valid  objection  to  it  in  certain  cases  and  emer- 
gencies.  The  well  being  of  the  whole  is  paramount  to  the 
good  of  the  few.  The  idea  of  punishment  is  necessarily 
implied  in  government.  Every  government  has  a  right, 
and  is  in  duty  bound,  to  inflict  just  so  much  and  such  kind 
of  punishment  upon  offenders  as  will  preserve  and  keep 
it  in  a  healthy  condition,  and  if  an  emergency  should  arise, 
as  there  likely  will,  that  government  may,  to  save  offend- 


INTRODUCTION  OF  MORAL  EVIL.         159 

ers  and  preserve  the  honor  and  dignity  of  the  laws,  accept 
a  substitute.  This  law  obtains  in  the  natural  world  in 
various  instances  without  shocking  our  sense  of  justice. 
And  if  it  be  proper  as  shown  for  civil  governments  to 
accept  substitutional  punishment,  why  may  not  God  in 
the  moral  government  of  His  universe  do  the  same?  Or 
as  human  governments  as  well  as  the  physical  laws  of 
this  our  world  are  the  institution  of  God,  and  we  find  that 
this  substitutional  punishment  is  admitted  into  this  His 
government,  would  not  this  fact  furnish  us  an  analogy 
that  a  like  state  of  things  might  be  expected  in  the  scheme 
of  redemption?  We  see  no  good  reason  that  it  may  not 
then  enter  into  His  moral  government. 

But  as  there  may  be  some  ambiguity  in  the  word 
"justice,"  we  ought  to  show  what  kind  of  justice  it  is 
that  admits  of  substitutional  punishment,  and  what  kind 
does  not.  There  is  what  may  be  termed  retributive  and 
administrative  justice.  By  the  former  we  are  to  under- 
stand that  attribute  in  God  which  disposes  Him  "to  punish 
an  offender  on  account  of  the  intrinsic  demerit  and  hateful- 
ness  of  the  offense,  and  which  animadverts  upon  the  evil 
conduct  of  a  moral  agent  considered  as  an  individual, 
and  not  as  a  member  of  the  great  family  of  intelligent 
beings."  This  kind  of  justice  in  God  inclines  Him  to  pun- 
ish, because  it  is  sinful  per  se — of  itself — and  not  because 
its  punishment  would  secure  the  ends  of  moral  govern- 
ment. That  is,  God  will  punish  each  individual  retrib- 
utively,  just  as  though  there  were  no  other  beings  in  the 
universe,  simply  on  the  account  of  the  real  demerit  of  sin. 
This  is  the  kind  of  punishment  that  will  be  meted  out  to 
every  unpardonable  one  at  the  coming  judgment. 

But  God's  administrative  justice  is  quite  a  different 
thing.  This  kind  of  justice  inclines  God  to  punish  of- 
fenders not  simply  because  it  is  deserved,  but  to  prevent 
transgression  and  secure  the  ends  of  wholesome  and  wise 
government.  It  is  this  administrative  justice  alone  that 
allows  of  substitutional  punishment.  It  was  to  satisfy  the 
administrative  and  not  the  retributive  justice  of  God 
that  Christ  died.    And  as  He  died  to  secure  the  ends  of 


160  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

God's  moral  government,  therefore  a  man  is  just  as  ob- 
noxious or  liable  to  God's  retributive  justice  after  as  he 
was  before  the  Atonement,  where  repentance  is  wanting. 
The  great  end  gained  by  Christ's  death  is  this,  time  and 
opportunity  are  afforded  man  to  repent  of  his  sins;  it 
places  God  in  such  a  relation  to  His  sinful  creatures  as 
that  He  can  have  mercy  and  grant  pardon  on  the  simple 
conditions  of  hearty  repentance  and  faith  in  the  Re- 
deemer. 

Suppose  a  nation  or  government  of  men  should  by 
transgression  render  themselves  liable  to  utter  extermina- 
tion by  their  sovereign,  whose  dignity  and  honor  had  been 
insulted.  Now  in  this  terrible  exigency  suppose  the  king's 
only  son  proposes  to  suffer  in  their  stead,  to  satisfy  the 
claims  of  justice  and  meet  the  ends  of  government,  and 
place  the  offenders  in  such  a  relation  to  the  sovereign 
that  he  may  grant  pardon  on  suitable  conditions.  Would 
not  such  an  exhibition  of  justice  and  mercy  greatly  mag- 
nify the  wisdom  and  goodness  of  the  sovereign  and 
strongly  excite  the  admiration  of  his  son  ?  Such  was  our 
sad  state  when  Christ  came  to  our  relief  and  satisfied  the 
administrative  justice  of  God  by  suffering  in  our  stead. 
He  thus  secured  the  ends  of  God's  moral  government  by 
giving  a  most  striking  exhibition  of  the  Father's  hatred 
of  sin  and  His  pity  towards  the  guilty.  This,  instead 
of  reflecting  on  God's  holiness  and  goodness,  only  magni- 
fies it  in  the  estimation  of  all  candid  and  rational  sin- 
ners. 

But  it  has  been  objected  to  by  Dr.  Channing,  who  was 
a  semi-infidel  in  belief,  that  the  vicarious  death  and  suffer- 
ings of  Christ  are  derogatory  to  the  mercy  of  God.  These 
are  his  words:  "I  know  it  is  said  that  Trinitarianism 
magnifies  the  mercy  of  God,  because  it  teaches  that  He 
Himself  provides  the  substitute  for  the  guilty.  But  I 
reply  that  the  work  here  ascribed  to  mercy  is  not  the  most 
appropriate,  not  the  most  fitted  to  manifest  it,  and  impress 
it  on  the  heart.  This  may  be  made  apparent  by  a  familiar 
illustration.  Suppose  that  a  creditor  through  compassion 
to  certain  debtors  should  persuade  a  benevolent  and  opu- 


INTRODUCTION  OF  MORAL  EVIL.         161 

lent  man  to  pay  him  in  their  stead,  would  not  the  debtors 
see  a  greater  mercy  and  feel  a  weightier  obligation  if  they 
were  to  receive  a  free  and  gratuitous  release?  And  will 
not  their  chief  gratitude  stray  beyond  the  creditor  to  their 
benevolent  substitute  ?  Or  suppose  that  a  parent  unwilling 
to  inflict  a  penalty  on  a  disobedient  but  feeble  child  should 
persuade  a  stronger  child  to  bear  it,  would  not  the  offender 
see  a  more  touching  mercy  in  a  free  forgiveness  springing 
immediately  from  the  parent's  heart,  than  in  this  circui- 
tous remission  ?;* 

This  objection  is  just  as  fatal  to  the  doctor's  theology 
as  to  that  of  Trinitarians.  He  holds  that  it  is  necessary 
that  we  should  repent  of  our  sins,  and  show  a  godly  sor- 
row therefor.  We  are  to  deny  ourselves,  take  up  our 
cross  and  follow  Christ.  As  the  doctor  says  of  the  debt- 
ors, so  may  we  say  of  the  sinner,  would  he  not  "see  a 
greater  mercy  and  feel  a  weightier  obligation  if  he  were 
to  receive  a  free  and  gratuitous  release? — without  all  this 
sorrow  and  repentance  and  self-denial?  Such  conditions 
are  humiliating,  exceedingly  crossing  to  human  nature. 
Certainly  if  the  analogy  be  worth  anything,  it  will  apply 
equally  to  the  teachings  of  Trinitarians  and  anti-Trini- 
tarians. But  the  analogy  is  not  correct;  it  lacks  in  too 
many  essential  points  to  deserve  the  name  of  an  analogy. 
It  is  sadly  defective,  in  that  it  puts  a  private  citizen  in  a 
similar  relation  to  that  of  the  moral  Governor  of  the  world. 
It  might  be  quite  proper  for  a  private  citizen  to  do  that 
which  in  a  civil  officer  would  be  highly  improper  and 
even  unjust.  There  are  certain  principles  in  government 
to  which  there  must  be  had  the  strictest  regard.  For  in- 
stance, the  power  of  granting  pardon  may  by  abuse  become 
a  most  dangerous  power.  A  private  citizen  may  exercise 
pardon  or  forgiveness,  and  no  one  may  suffer  from  it  but 
himself.  The  authority  and  dignity  of  law  must  be  strictly 
guarded  by  showing  its  utter  disapprobation  and  hatred 
of  transgression.  This  principle  of  private  forgiveness 
is  recognized  and  strongly  advised,  while  that  of  official 
forgiveness  is  in  the  main  prohibited.  It  is  the  exception. 
There  is  a  maxim  of  extensive  application  that  "It  is  bet- 
ii 


i62  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

ter  that  one  suffer  than  the  many."  In  governments  the 
less  ought  always  to  succumb  to  the  greater;  while  in  a 
private  capacity  the  contrary  may  be  commendable.  The 
same  is  true  in  regard  to  the  case  of  the  father  and  son 
instanced  by  the  doctor.  The  father  is  a  governor  in  the 
fullest  sense  of  that  term.  It  would  be  a  ruinous  prec- 
edent for  a  father  in  the  government  of  his  children  to 
do  as  here  recommended;  to  grant  his  disobedient  child 
"a  free  and  gratuitous  release."  There  would  soon  be 
an  end  of  family  government.  The  children  would  soon 
rule  their  head,  instead  of  their  head  ruling  them.  But 
a  substitute  for  the  doctor's  feeble  child  might  be  granted, 
provided  the  parents'  hatred  of  disobedience  could  as 
forcibly  be  impressed  on  the  transgressor's  mind  as  if 
he  should  suffer  the  penalty  himself.  Or  it  is  very  likely 
that  he  might  have  a  more  lively  sense  of  the  exceeding 
sinfulnss  of  sin  than  if  he  should  endure  the  penalty  him- 
self, in  seeing  one  stronger  than  himself  suffer  what  was 
his  due.  This  would  be  so  if  after  the  substitute  had  suf- 
fered he  was  still  held  as  a  transgressor  and  was  required 
to  fill  some  irrevocable  conditions,  as  repentance,  the  con- 
fession of  his  guilt,  the  promise  of  reformation ;  if  unwil- 
ling to  comply  with  these  requisitions,  that  he  should  suffer 
the  full  penalty  of  the  insulted  law.  These  would  be 
powerful  sanctions  to  the  dignity  and  honor  of  the  law, 
and  would  deeply  impress  the  offender  with  the  heinous 
nature  of  his  offense.  He  would  then  see  how  great  was 
the  mercy  of  his  father  in  accepting  a  substitute  to  give 
him  an  opportunity  of  repenting  and  suing  for  pardon. 
Here  is  the  very  point,  and  the  only  point,  where  he  could 
see  that  most  wonderful  and  soul-stirring  spectacle: 
"Mercy  and  truth  meeting  together;  righteousness  and 
peace  kissing  each  other."  It  is  just  here  that  the  highest 
exhibition  of  God's  mercy  as  a  righteous  governor  is  to 
be  seen !  This  accepting  His  Son's  vicarious  sufferings 
for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world  is  its  most  transcendent 
stoop  and  affecting  display.  If  God's  goodness  and  justice 
do  not  shine  most  conspicuously  here,  then  there  is  no 
act  of  His  that  has  ever  given  the  slightest  intimation 


INTRODUCTION  OF  MORAL  EVIL.         163 

that  He  is  such  a  Being  as  the  Bible  makes  Him.  "It  was 
great  to  create  a  world  from  naught,  but  greater  to  re- 
deem;" it  was  greater  to  solve  the  problem,  How  can 
God  be  just  and  yet  be  the  justifier  of  the  repentant 
sinner  ? 

God's  mercy,  then,  is  to  be  seen  to  best  advantage  in 
union  with  His  justice.  Nay,  is  it  not  a  mode  of  the 
Divine  justice?  That  would  be  indeed  a  wretched  exhi- 
bition of  justice  that  would  release  an  offender  when  that 
release  would  entail  a  serious  injury  upon  an  entire  soci- 
ety. And  this  is  the  natural  and  legitimate  inference  to  be 
drawn  from  the  doctor's  reasoning.  But  God's  mercy  has 
its  bounds,  and  always  has  relation  and  regard  to  the 
general  good,  and  never  to  individual  instances  when  those 
would  injuriously  affect  the  general  weal.  His  mercy 
is  not  a  fitful  impulse  or  passion  to  be  judged  of  by  this 
attribute  in  corrupt  natures.  It  acts  upon  a  grand  scale 
in  the  accomplishment  of  its  blessed  designs.  L,et  not 
shortsighted  man  rashly  charge  God's  mercy  with  in- 
justice by  saying  that  we  should  have  had  a  more  touch- 
ing display  of  that  mercy  had  He  given  the  sinner  "a  free 
and  gratuitous  release."  This  is  reasoning  from  very 
narrow  views  of  the  Divine  character  and  plans.  It  is 
charging  Jehovah  with  folly  such  as  would  cast  discredit 
on  a  fallible  creature. 

Before  concluding  this  subject  we  ought  in  justice 
thereto  to  meet  an  objection  from  a  different  quarter. 
The  objection  is  founded  on  the  Divine  foreknowledge, 
and  then  from  this  assumption  the  crazy  tenet  of  univer- 
salism  is  deduced.  The  argument  may  be  thus  stated: 
God  knew  before  He  created  man  that  he  would  sin; 
therefore  he  could  not  avoid  it;  if  he  could  not  avoid  it, 
then  God  will  not  punish  him  everlastingly.  This  fallacy 
can  soon  be  exposed,  so  that  the  most  ordinary  mind  may 
detect  it.  There  is  a  confounding  of  two  things  here 
that  are  wholly  distinct,  viz. :  foreknowledge  and  necessity. 
Foreknowledge  or  certainty  is  a  quality  of  the  prescient 
being,  or  God,  and  not  a  quality  of  the  actor.  The  mis- 
take is  in  transferring  the  certainty  to  the  act  and  not 


164  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

to  God,  that  has  had  much  to  do  in  mystifying  this  sub- 
ject. A  thing  may  then  be  certain  and  not  necessitated. 
To  illustrate :  We  know  the  sun  will  rise  to-morrow  morn- 
ing; but  it  will  not  rise  because  we  know  it.  It  would  rise 
if  we  did  not  know  it.  You  may  see  a  blind  man  walking 
towards  a  fearful  precipice,  and  you  know  that  if  he  goes 
much  farther  in  that  direction  he  will  be  precipitated  into 
the  gulf  below;  but  your  knowing  this  does  not  necessitate 
his  act  in  the  least;  the  result  would  be  the  same  did  you 
not  know  it.  It  was  precisely  thus  in  the  fall  of  our  First 
Parents.  God  knew  that  transgression  would  produce 
misery  and  death;. but  His  knowing  this  did  no  more  neces- 
sitate their  act  than  my  right  hand  did.  They  would  have 
done  the  same  thing,  the  circumstances  being  the  same, 
had  God  not  known  it.  God's  foreknowledge  no  more 
caused  the  First  Pair  to  fall,  than  His  foreknowledge 
kept  those  angels  from  falling  who  have  kept  their  first 
estate.  Remember  that  foreknowledge  in  us  and  in  God 
is  the  same  in  kind,  though  not  in  degree.  Man's  will 
and  ability  are  not  influenced  in  the  slightest  degree  by 
what  God  may  or  may  not  know.  Therefore  the  conclu- 
sion which  is  here  drawn  that  God  will  not  punish  man 
everlastingly  does  not  follow.  But  suppose  the  premise 
were  correct — which  it  is  not — that  God  would  not  punish 
a  man  eternally  for  what  he  could  not  avoid,  still  the  argu- 
ment would  be  as  fatal  to  the  doctrines  of  Universalism 
as  to  those  of  future  endless  punishment.  Do  not  the 
favorers  of  this  argument  see  that  it  justifies  God  in  pun- 
ishing men  in  this  life — and  that  very  severely  too — for 
what  they  could  not  help?  Now,  if  the  doctrine  that  it 
would  be  unjust  in  God  to  punish  men  eternally  for  what 
they  could  not  avoid,  then  it  would  be  unjust  to  punish 
them  at  all  for  what  they  could  not  avoid.  Suppose  a 
father  imposes  an  obligation  on  a  son  that  he  can  not 
discharge  for  the  lack  of  ability,  and  then  punished  him 
a  few  years  for  his  disobedience,  but  tells  him  that  he 
shall  receive  no  punishment  after  a  certain  time.  What 
would  be  thought  of  the  justice  ^and  reasonableness  of  the 
father's  government?    Would  he  not  rightly  merit  the  title 


INTRODUCTION  OF  MORAL  EVIL.         165 

of  a  tyrant?  Be  it  remembered  that  he  that  is  unjust  in 
that  which  is  least,  will  also  be  unjust  in  that  which  is 
greater.  But  men  allow  that  in  God  which  they  would 
condemn  in  the  case  alluded  to.  This  argument,  if  it  has 
any  weight  at  all,  lies  equally  against  punishment  here 
and  hereafter,  so  that  it  proves  too  much.  But  seeing 
God's  foreknowledge  had  nothing  to  do  with  man's  fall; 
i.  e.,  did  not  necessitate  it,  the  argument  does  not  prove 
what  it  was  intended  to  prove. 

This  vindication  of  the  Divine  goodness  and  justice 
in  creating  moral  agents  may  not  be  entirely  free  from 
the  charge  of  weakness  from  the  poverty  of  human  lan- 
guage, yet  we  hold  that  it  has  infinitely  fewer  objections 
and  of  a  less  serious  nature  than  the  world  the  infidel 
would  give  us  in  its  stead.  We  hope  this  view  will  throw 
such  an  amount  of  light  upon  the  subject  as  that  what 
may  remain  enigmatical  will  be  so  small,  compared  with 
what  is  revealed  concerning  the  Divine  doings,  that  all 
doubts  of  His  goodness  and  holiness  will  be  put  to  flight 
forever !  It  was  a  wise  remark,  made  by  a  great  thinker, 
that  we  should  never  let  what  we  do  know  and  understand 
clearly  be  disturbed  by  what  we  do  not  know.  Especially 
is  this  caution  worthy  of  attention  when  what  is  revealed 
on  the  question  of  moral  evil  so  greatly  overbalances  what 
is  not  made  known.  Where  we  can  not  trace  God  we 
should  trust  Him.  God  then  is  not  to  be  charged  with 
folly,  impotence,  cruelty,  and  injustice  for  creating  a  being 
liable  to  abuse  his  liberty.  It  all  lies  with  the  free  moral 
and  intelligent  agent.  He  might  have  stood,  and  now  that 
he  has  fallen  he  may  be  restored  to  all  that  he  has  lost. 
God's  holiness  and  justice  are  not  only  unimpaired,  but 
His  goodness  has  had  an  opportunity  of  displaying  itself 
in  a  new  and  most  remarkable  manner. 


166  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

CONSCIENCE. 

Lecture  to  Students. 

Young  Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : 

I  propose  to  invite  your  attention  this  afternoon  to 
Conscience,  or  as  some  moral  philosophers  term  it,  the 
Moral  Sense.  Our  inquiries  will  be  best  aided  and  under- 
stood by  observing  some  order.  The  following  seems  as 
natural  and  appropriate  as  any  that  occurs  to  us;  viz., 
Is  Conscience  an  innate  and  intuitive  faculty?  Is  there 
a  universal  Conscience?  What  is  the  relative  importance 
of  this  faculty?  And  when  and  how  far  may  we  depend 
upon  its  decisions?  Is  Conscience  an  innate  and  intuitive 
faculty?  We  are  aware  in  instituting  the  inquiry  that  we 
find  ourselves  on  controverted  ground.  Mental  phi- 
losophers and  theologians  are  divided  in  sentiment  here. 
Either  to  affirm  or  deny  this  interrogatory  without  some 
modification  would  be  positions  extremely  difficult  to  main- 
tain. We  think,  however,  that  the  negative  is  nearer  the 
truth  than  the  affirmative.  But  the  whole  truth  we  appre- 
hend will  be  found  in  neither.  We  hope  to  show  that  it 
lies  between  these  extremes,  or  partly  in  both. 

A  brief  notice  of  the  term  faculty  and  its  limiting 
words  innate  and  intuitive  will  assist  us  in  understanding 
the  animus  or  true  sense  of  the  question.  By  faculty  we 
mean  the  power  or  ability  of  doing  something.  Thus  we 
talk  of  the  faculty  of  seeing,  hearing,  feeling,  reasoning, 
perception,  etc.  When  we  speak  of  Conscience  we  mean 
the  faculty  of  judging  between  right  and  wrong,  virtue 
and  vice,  sin  and  holiness. 

By  innate  we  mean,  as  the  word  literally  imports,  in- 
born, or  born  in  one — occurring  at  one's  birth.  Then  when 
applied  to  any  faculty  of  the  mind  it  means  coeval  with 
its  birth. 

By  intuitive  we  mean  the  power  of  perceiving  clearly 
and  fully  at  a  glance  anything  and  everything  with  which 
the  faculty  is  conversant  or  has  to  do.  It  is  to  be  an 
instantaneous  decision  without  antecedent  reasoning  and 
extraneous  information.    With  this  brief  definition  of  the 


CONSCIENCE.  167 

terms  involved  we  are  prepared  to  say  that  the  faculty 
of  Conscience  itself  is  innate.  Itself  we  say,  for  we  wish 
to  be  understood  as  making  a  broad  distinction  between 
the  faculty  and  its  necessary  antecedent  instruction.  This 
distinction  we  think  is  just  and  palpable,  and  the  neglect 
to  make  and  bear  it  in  mind  has  perplexed  to  no  small 
degree  the  settlement  of  the  long  controverted  question. 
Is  Conscience  an  innate  faculty?  We  hesitate  not  for  an 
instant  to  affirm  that  the  faculty  or  power  itself  called 
Conscience  is  inborn.  Whether  it  be  a  distinct  faculty 
or  is  the  result  of  a  combination  of  faculties,  we  need 
not  now  detain  you  to  inquire;  but  we  all  know  full  well 
that  there  is  something  answering  to  what  we  are  pleased 
to  call  Conscience  in  every  rational  intelligence.  Every 
moral  being  must  possess  it.  To  be  destitute  of  it  is  not 
to  be  a  moral  and  accountable  being.  It  is  the  distin- 
guishing and  essential  characteristic  of  a  moral  agent. 
This  faculty  or  power  then  must  be  innate,  or  coeval  with 
the  mind's  birth;  or  we  shall  be  driven  to  the  extremity 
of  showing  that  it  is  given  to  us  after  our  introduction 
into  this  world,  which  would  obligate  us  to  tell  when  and 
how  it  is  given  after  birth  to  the  soul — a  thing  we  shall 
be  unable  to  do  unless  we  assume  that  the  faculty  of 
Conscience  is  nothing  more  than  the  result  of  knowledge, 
or  "the  creature  of  education"  as  some  are  wont  to  call 
it.  To  say  that  it  is  the  result  of  knowledge  or  education 
is  to  make  the  effect  the  cause,  which  is  philosophically 
absurd.  This  position  is  too  contradictory  to  be  enter- 
tained for  a  moment,  for  the  power  or  cause  must  be  an- 
terior to  the  effect.  There  can  not  be  a  decision  without 
a  power  to  decide,  no  more  than  there  can  be  vision  with- 
out the  eye,  or  hearing  without  an  ear.  But  every  faculty 
which  man  has  must  have  some  law  or  rule  by  which  it  is 
to  be  regulated.  The  bestowal  of  the  law  may  be  delayed 
some  considerable  time  after  the  faculty  has  been  created ; 
in  other  words  this  law  or  rule  of  action,  if  necessarily 
coeval  with  the  faculty,  may  not  operate  till  long  after  the 
faculty  has  been  in  being.  We  have  abundant  illustrations 
of  this  in  the  natural  world.     Birds  have  wings,  or  the 


168  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

power  of  locomotion  through  the  air,  given  them  some 
time  before  they  are  prepared  to  use  them.  Children  have 
hands  and  feet  long  before  they  have  any  apparent  use 
for  them.  The  faculty  of  Conscience  lies  dormant  until 
the  human  being  comes  to  the  period  when  it  is  capable  of 
understanding  the  terms  right  and  wrong.  Some  arrive 
at  this  knowledge  much  earlier  than  others,  and  of  conse- 
quence become  accountable  that  much  sooner.  We  per- 
ceive, then,  that  Conscience  abstractly  as  a  faculty  or 
power  is  innate,  or  coeval  with  the  soul's  birth.  While 
this  is  indisputable,  yet  it  is  equally  as  clear  that  it  is  not 
intuitive  or  instinctive.  We  mean  by  this  that  it  will 
not  act  antecedently  to  the  knowledge  of  right  and  wrong, 
for  if  it  did  it  would  act  as  soon  as  the  moral  being  is 
born,  which  we  know  is  not  the  case.  Instinct  acts  as 
readily  the  first  hour  as  after  years  of  exercise.  Thus 
instinct  impels  the  young  duck  or  gosling  to  seek  the  water 
as  soon  as  born.  Nor  will  they  swim  more  gracefully 
one  year  hence  than  then.  This  is  instinct  or  intuition. 
Not  so  with  Conscience.  It  must  first  be  informed  through 
the  judgment  or  reason  what  is  right  and  what  wrong 
before  it  can  render  its  decision.  In  this  sense  Conscience 
is  not  intuitive  or  instinctive.  This  apparent  contradiction 
may  be  relieved  by  turning  our  attention  for  a  moment 
to  the  creation  of  the  First  Pair.  They  were  placed  in 
a  garden  where  everything  conspired  equally  to  delight 
the  eye,  the  ear,  and  the  taste.  An  interdict  is  laid  upon 
one  tree  only;  and  they  were  made  fully  aware  that  this 
was  to  be  avoided  on  pain  of  death  temporal  and  loss 
of  the  Divine  favor.  Now  without  the  antecedent  infor- 
mation their  conscience  would  not  have  intimated  to  them 
that  it  was  wrong  to  eat  of  that  particular  tree.  Nor 
could  they  without  this  information  have  discerned  any- 
thing in  the  fruit  of  that  tree,  calculated  to  produce  such 
dire  consequences  as  followed  their  disregard  of  their 
Maker's  prohibition,  more  than  in  any  other  tree  of  the 
garden,  for  the  fruit  was  beautiful  to  the  eye  and  prob- 
ably pleasing  to  the  taste.  But  it  must  be  evident  to  every 
discriminating  mind,  that  to  decide  as  to  the  qualities  of 


CONSCIENCE.  169 

different  fruit  is  no  part  of  the  office  of  Conscience;  this 
is  reserved  for  other  faculties  of  the  mind.  It  is  wholly 
conversant  with  the  moral  qualities  of  acts,  and  not  with 
material  objects. 

Suppose  now  that  Adam  and  Eve  had  strayed  through 
the  garden  previous  to  the  information  furnished  them 
of  the  fearful  consequences  of  eating  that  fruit,  would 
their  consciences  have  warned  them  that  they  ought  not 
to  partake  of  that  tree?  Or  would  they  have  felt  that 
stinging  sense  of  condemnation  upon  meeting  their  Maker 
that  they  did?  No  one  can  come  to  a  conclusion  so  vio- 
lent. There  would  have  been  no  hiding  in  the  thickets; 
there  would  have  been  no  such  excuses  as,  "I  heard  Thy 
voice  in  the  garden,  and  I  was  afraid  because  I  was  naked 
and  hid  myself;"  "The  woman  whom  Thou  gavest  me," 
etc.;  and  "The  Serpent  beguiled  me  and  I  did  eat."  Had 
they  not  been  previously  forbidden  to  eat  they  had  met 
their  Creator  as  aforetime  without  dread,  even  though 
they  had  eaten  of  that  same  tree,  for  we  can  not  conceive 
that  there  was  anything  in  the  fruit  itself  productive  of 
such  evils  and  miseries  as  have  resulted  to  our  world 
from  that  act  of  disobedience.  If  sin  is  the  transgression 
of  a  known  law,  it  must  have  been  in  the  act  and  not  in 
the  fruit.  Abstractly,  the  fruit  of  that  tree  was  probably 
as  innocent  and  harmless  as  any  to  which  they  had  un- 
limited access.  These  facts  must  settle  the  question  of 
Conscience  not  being  intuitive  or  instinctive  before  previ- 
ous knowledge.  The  establishment  of  this  point  is  vital, 
and  will  greatly  assist  us  in  our  further  inquiries  concern- 
ing the  relation  and  peculiar  functions  of  this  important 
faculty.  The  doctrine  of  "innate  ideas"  is  no  more  pre- 
posterous than  that  of  an  intuitive  conscience. 

The  way  is  now  somewhat  prepared  for  our  next  ques- 
tion: Is  there  a  universal  conscience?  Or  are  all  men 
furnished  with  a  conscience?  We  answer,  Yes;  all  but 
idiots  possess  a  conscience;  and  they  doubtless  have  the 
faculty,  but  are  not  capable  of  using  it  because  of  other 
mental  derangement.  This  very  universality,  which  we 
are  free  to  grant  and  defend,  has  been  most  strenuously 


i;o  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

urged  as  a  strong  argument  in  favor  of  its  being  intuitive. 
It  may  be  some  proof  that  Conscience  is  innate  as  a  fac- 
ulty or  power;  but  none  whatever  that  it  acts  instinct- 
ively before  the  knowledge  of  what  is  right  and  wrong 
has  been  furnished  it  through  the  reason.  All  nations 
and  tribes  have  a  conscience  of  some  kind,  though  they 
may  differ  widely  as  to  what  is  right  and  what  wrong; 
it  is  nevertheless  a  conscience  that  makes  them  approve 
some  acts  and  disapprove  others.  It  has  been  well  said 
that  every  language  contains  terms  expressive  of  the  ideas, 
right  and  wrong.  Whatever  differences  there  may  be 
between  Christian  and  heathen  nations,  are  owing  to  their 
different  information. 

We  ought  probably  to  clear  up  just  here  what  may 
appear  to  be  a  contradiction  in  our  use  of  terms.  We 
have  said  that  knowledge  concerning  right  and  wrong 
must  be  given  before  Conscience  can  render  its  verdict 
or  decision.  Now  it  may  be  said  that  the  office  of  Con- 
science itself  is  to  furnish  this  knowledge.  This  contra- 
diction is  only  apparent,  not  real.  The  poverty  of  human 
language  is  the  proper  solution.  Knozvledge  as  we  have 
employed  it  has  a  twofold  sense.  When  we  speak  of  ante- 
cedent information  or  knowledge,  we  mean  the  standard 
of  right  and  wrong;  but  when  we  speak  of  knowledge 
in  reference  to  Conscience  itself,  we  mean  its  decisions 
or  intimations  that  our  acts  either  harmonize  or  disagree 
with  the  standard  or  rule  by  which  it  acts.  If  it  shall  be 
said  the  very  etymology  of  the  word  Conscience  signifies 
to  know,  the  proper  answer  to  that  is :  this  knowledge 
which  conscience  is  said  to  have  refers  to  its  own  percep- 
tions of  acts  which  relate  to  the  standard  and  the  actor, 
and  not  to  the  antecedent  knowledge  of  right  and  wrong 
as  abstract  principles,  which  depends  upon  the  Creator's 
will.  To  learn  His  will,  or  the  standard  of  right  and 
wrong,  is  not  the  office  of  conscience,  but  of  the  reason 
or  judgment.  This  latter  act  is  purely  intellectual,  and 
that  of  conscience  purely  moral.  It  will  be  perceived,  then, 
that  knowledge  received  through  the  judgment  is  quite 
different  from  that  received  through  the  moral  sense.    One 


CONSCIENCE.  171 

is  a  knowledge  of  a  law;  the  other  a  knowledge  or  con- 
sciousness of  one's  acts,  as  according  or  disagreeing  with 
a  law  external  to,  though  binding  upon  him.  This  is 
a  brief,  but  we  trust  true,  explanation  of  things  quite 
generally  confounded  on  account  of  the  ambiguity  of  the 
word  knowledge.  This  distinction  must  be  continually 
observed,  or  we  shall  get  into  the  dark  in  our  researches 
on  this  question. 

Having  disposed  of  the  proposition  that  there  is  a 
universal  conscience,  and  that  this  universality  is  no  proof 
that  conscience  is  intuitive,  we  address  ourselves  to  the 
task  of  showing  what  is  the  relative  importance  of  this 
faculty  of  the  mind.  While  no  faculty  of  the  soul  is  un- 
important, yet  some  are  more  important  than  others. 
Matter  may  be  important,  but  it  is  inferior  to  mind;  the 
intellect  is  important,  but  it  is  less  so  than  the  moral  or 
religious  nature.  In  point  of  eminence  and  office  Con- 
science yields  to  none.  It  is  evidently  pre-eminent.  It 
is  purely  moral  in  its  nature  and  functions,  as  has  already 
been  intimated.  It  is  the  tribunal  before  which  all  man's 
acts,  words,  and  thoughts  are  brought  to  be  scrutinized 
and  determined  as  to  their  moral  qualities.  Nothing 
may  absolve  us  from  its  enlightened  verdict.  Its  just  and 
untrammeled  decisions  are  ratified  in  heaven.  If  there  is 
anything  answering  to  the  notion  of  some  of  the  learned 
heathen  writers  of  early  times,  of  "God  within  us,"  it 
must  be  Conscience.  It  in  all  probability  will  be  a  swift 
witness,  either  for  or  against  us,  at  the  final  judgment 
of  the  world. 

Such,  too,  is  the  dependence  of  one  faculty  of  the  mind 
on  another,  and  such  the  superior  and  controlling  influence 
of  some  over  others,  that  the  absence  or  unhealthy  state 
of  even  one  might  greatly  derange  and  weaken  the  due 
exercise  of  all  the  others.  Now  Conscience  in  relation 
to  the  other  faculties  occupies  the  chief  position,  and  is 
the  sovereign  ruler  of  all  their  workings.  Take  away  this 
regulating  principle,  or  even  disregard  its  monitions  and 
behests,  and  no  act  of  a  man's  life  is  what  the  Creator 
designed  it  should  be.    Then  the  proper  and  healthy  exer- 


172  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

rise  of  every  other  faculty  of  the  mind  depends  upon  their 
strict  obedience  to  a  well-informed  Conscience.  If  such 
is  the  high  relation  and  office  of  this  faculty,  need  we  stop 
to  claim  for  it  your  most  serious  consideration,  and  ask 
your  most  hearty  attention  to  its  correct  and  thorough  en- 
lightenment and  exercise? 

As  to  the  question,  When  and  how  far  may  we  depend 
on  its  decisions,  we  approach  it  with  some  degree  of  re- 
luctance, yet  with  a  good  measure  of  confidence.  Reluc- 
tance, because  the  subject  has  been  fruitful  of  bitter  con- 
troversy and  great  errors;  confidence,  because  we  hope 
that  we  have  found  a  correct  standard  by  which  the  fac- 
ulty may  be  regulated.  If  we  have  such  a  standard,  we 
know  you  will  rejoice  and  feel  a  modest  confidence  with 
us  in  being  able  to  solve  what  many  may  deem  a  "Gordian 
Knot."  The  standard  or  rule  must  be  the  will  of  some 
infinite  and  superior  Being.  Nothing  else  can  aspire  to 
so  high  a  dignity  but  the  will  of  a  Being  who  is  infinite 
in  wisdom,  power,  and  goodness.  That  will  must  of  neces- 
sity be  the  supreme  foundation  of  all  law,  civil  and  moral. 
This  question  is  at  once  pertinent  and  vital.  It  may  be 
settled  by  the  following  summary  method:  If  man  is  the 
creature  of  God,  and  is  under  a  moral  government  or 
moral  law,  the  presumption  would  be  that  he  must  be  in- 
formed what  that  law  is  under  which  he  is  to  live.  This 
law,  too,  must  proceed  from  his  Maker,  if  from  any  one. 
If  the  law  is  necessary  it  must  first  be  given  to  be  obeyed, 
for  "where  there  is  no  law  there  is  no  transgression." 
Again,  if  the  Creator  is  infinitely  good,  He  would  not 
withhold  that  from  His  creatures  which  was  indispensably 
necessary  as  the  revelation  of  such  a  law  would  be  to  its 
being  obeyed.  Again,  He  must  reveal  this  law,  or  forfeit 
His  attribute  of  holiness,  justice,  which  would  immedi- 
ately strip  Him  of  the  highest  and  most  indispensable 
qualification  of  a  moral  Governor. 

Now  these  presumptions  are  greatly  confirmed  in  two 
ways:  first,  by  a  revelation  by  Nature;  and  second,  by  a 
revelation  by  language.  By  the  former  we  mean  God  has 
manifested  Himself  in  the  natural   world.     "For  the  in- 


CONSCIENCE.  173 

visible  things  of  Him  from  the  creation  of  the  world  are 
clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  the  things  that  are 
made,  even  His  external  power  and  Godhead."  By  the 
latter  we  mean  the  Holy  Scriptures  or  Bible.  "God  who 
at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  manners  spake  in  times  past 
unto  the  fathers  by  the  prophets,  hath  in  these  last  days 
spoken  unto  us  by  His  Son."  "For  the  prophecy  came 
not  in  old  time,  by  the  will  of  man ;  but  holy  men  of  God 
spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  The  reve- 
lation by  Language  is  much  more  explicit  and  satisfactory 
than  that  by  Nature.  While  their  relative  importance  is 
very  marked,  yet  there  is  the  most  perfect  harmony  exist- 
ing between  these  different  manifestations  of  Himself  to 
His  rational  creatures.  Those  who  argue  that  God's  mani- 
festation of  Himself  in  the  physical  world  is  sufficient  for 
all  moral  purposes,  seem  to  argue  strangely  indeed.  That 
human  reason  unassisted  is  competent  to  learn  the  will 
of  the  Creator  sufficiently  for  all  practical  ends  is  a  great 
blunder,  and  palpably  in  the  face  of  history  and  human 
experience.  Many  affect  to  ridicule  the  idea  of  a  reve- 
lation by  language,  while  they  laud  Nature  and  deify  hu- 
man Reason  with  no  little  intemperance.  For  rational 
creatures  to  ignore  and  stoutly  reject  a  written  Revelation 
were  the  same  as  if  men  refused  the  light  of  the  Sun, 
because  they  were  in  possession  of  star  light.  One  would 
not  be  more  unwise  than  the  other. 

But  it  may  be  urged  that  the  pretended  Revelation 
known  as  the  Bible  is  nothing  more  than  a  human  produc- 
tion. We  have  not  the  time  nor  the  disposition  to  answer 
the  many  frivolous  objections  made  to  the  Bible.  If  it  be 
said  the  present  Revelation  contains  defects  and  weak- 
nesses a  sufficient  reply  would  be,  so  has  the  sun  spots  on 
his  disk.  What  may  appear  to  be  defects  to  us  might  not 
be  so,  were  we  sufficiently  acquainted  with  all  the  facts 
and  circumstances  of  its  delivery.  The  spots  on  the  sun 
do  not  seem  to  interfere  with  its  power  to  dispense  light 
and  heat.  The  same  is  true  of  the  Bible,  with  all  the 
imaginary  defects  with  which  some  charge  it.  It  is  very 
difficult,  nay  impossible,   for  a  jaundiced  eye  to  behold 


174  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

things  in  their  true  colors.    Granting  that  a  written  Reve- 
lation would  be  given,  we  should  naturally  expect  some- 
thing like  the  present  one.     It  is  most  in  harmony  with 
the  wants  of  man  and  the  character  of  God  of  anything 
to  be  found  in  the  entire  history  and  literature  of  the  race. 
Nor  ought  Christianity  to  be  asked  to  give  up  the  present 
till  its  enemies  furnish  a  better.    If  man  must  have  some 
law  to  regulate  his  life,  let  it  be  the  best  one  known — that 
which   comes  most  nearly  meeting  his  necessities;   that 
which  looks  most  as  if  it  came  from  his  Maker.    We  hesi- 
tate not  to  say  that  this  is  the  Bible.     This,  if  anything 
can  be,  is  the  will  of  God.    It  is  a  true  transcript  of  His 
mind  concerning  man.    It  is  by  this  standard  alone,  then, 
that  we  have  a  correct  knowledge  of  what  is  right  and 
what  wrong;  what  is  sin  and  what  holiness,  and  what  is 
vice  and  what  virtue.     If  anything  is  right  or  wrong,  it 
is  because  it  agrees  or  disagrees  with  the  unchangeable 
and  holy  will  of  God.    An  act  is  not  right  simply  because 
it  may  be  convenient  or  pleasing  to  sense,  or  even  advan- 
tageous according  to  human  notions;  nor  is  it  wrong  be- 
cause it  may  cause  inconvenience  or  pain,  or  be  crossing 
to  nature.     Acts  are  right  or  wrong  for  a  very  different 
reason;   namely,  God's  will  is  unalterable,   so  are  right 
and  wrong.    They  can  never  change  by  any  circumstances 
whatever.     Right  can  never  become  wrong,   nor  wrong 
right.     They  have  been,  are,   and  will  be  eternally  the 
same.     The   Bible   and   Nature   then   become   God's   ex- 
pressed  will  to   His   rational   and   moral   creatures;    we 
have  a  ready  solution  of  the  question,  "When  and  how 
far   may  we   depend   on   the   decisions   of   Conscience?" 
Just  when  and  so  far  as  we  are  certain  that  our  acts, 
words,  and  thoughts  are  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of 
Nature  and  the  written  Word  of  God,  and  only  then  may 
we  infallibly  depend  on  its  monitions.    We  are  well  aware 
that  this  is  high  ground,  but  we  will  risk  its  being  safe. 
We  are  also  aware  that  there  are  some  questions  of  Con- 
science that  present  difficulties,   that  puzzle  the  acutest 
casuists.     These  may  be  solved  when  brought  to  the  in- 
fallible standard  of  Divine  truth.     Only  let  them  be  sub- 


CONSCIENCE.  175 

mitted  with  patient  toil  and  genuine  docility,  and  their 
difficulties    must   vanish.     The   great   diversity   of   Con- 
science which  we  observe  in  the  world  is  the  result  of 
the  different  information  men  possess  of  the  will  of  God, 
expressed  in  the  ways  to  which  allusion  has  been  made. 
Had  all  men  similar  conceptions  of  their  Maker's  will, 
there  would  not  be  that  diversity  of  conscience  which  we 
find  on  certain  points.    In  this  remark  we  do  not  include 
cases  of  willful  perversion,  but  simply  cases  where  honest 
men  may  differ.    That  the  great  difference  between  Pagan 
and  Christian  nations  is  due  to  the  superior  moral  enlight- 
enment of  the  latter  needs  no  proof.     So  the  small  differ- 
ences on  points  of  conscience  between  professed  and  nomi- 
nal Christians  is  to  be  found  in  their  different  under- 
standing of  that  will.    But  why  this  different  information, 
where  their  advantages  are  equal,  of  learning  God's  will? 
It  is  not  quite  true  that  our  opportunities  of  knowing  His 
will  are  equal.     Some  men  have  not  only  superior  minds, 
but  they  also  have  more  leisure  for  the  prosecution  of 
such  studies  than  others.     But  allowing  that  they  have 
nearly  equal  facilities,  the  true  answer  would  be,  either 
some  are  more  diligent  in  seeking  this  information  than 
others,  or  they  possess  more  contemplative  minds   than 
others.    If  the  former  be  the  reason,  then  the  idler  is  re- 
sponsible for  his  lack;  but  if  the  latter,  then  God  will  not 
hold  him  accountable  only  for  what  he  might  have  known. 
God  is  not  a  hard  Master.    If  a  man  be  blind  through  His 
ordering,  God  will  not  hold  him  responsible  for  not  seeing 
the  sun.    But  all  sane  men  may  acquaint  themselves  with 
the  will  of  the  Moral  Governor  of  the  world,  seeing  He 
has    furnished   them   such    abundant   means;    all   others, 
i.  e.,  all  insane,  are  irresponsible.     It  must  have  been  ob- 
served by  all  present  that  the  most  conscientious  or  best 
informed  in  the  will  of  God  are  not  always  the  most  in- 
telligent or  best  educated  among  us.    A  man  may  be  well 
read  in  the  lore  of  this  world,  and  yet  exceedingly  ill- 
informed  in  the  morals   of  Christianity.      So   there   are 
many  men  well  versed  in  the  theory  of  Christianity  who 
are  wretched  practitioners ;  that  is,  they  do  not  follow  the 


i76  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

dictates  of  Conscience.  They  may  have  disregarded  its 
warnings  so  long  that  it  has  ceased  altogether  to  notify 
them;  or  if  it  does,  it  is  but  very  feebly.  Conscience  may 
be  blunted;  it  may  be  "seared  as  with  a  hot  iron."  You 
may  silence  its  faithful  voice;  you  may  drown  it  in  the 
whirl  of  pleasure  and  in  the  clamors  of  passion  and  vice. 
This  perversion  on  the  part  of  some,  and  ignorance  of 
God's  will  on  the  part  of  others  in  Christian  lands,  will 
satisfactorily  account  for  the  diversity  among  men  con- 
cerning some  questions  of  casuistry.  Nor  will  it  suffice 
that  a  man  may  be  sincere,  for  he  may  be  sincere  in  a 
grand  error.  Some  darkened  minds  conceive  it  a  virtue 
to  steal  and  lie;  others  to  sacrifice  their  offspring  and 
aged  parents.  In  all  this  too  they  claim  to  be  actuated 
by  religious  motives.  Even  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles 
thought  he  was  doing  God's  service  while  persecuting  and 
slaughtering  the  early  Christian  Church.  But  who  will 
claim  that  these  things  are  right  because  their  consciences 
approve  their  acts?  In  all  these  and  similar  cases  con- 
science is  ill-informed  or  sadly  perverted.  So  there  are 
hundreds  of  cases  less  flagrant  in  their  nature  in  our  age 
of  light,  where  men  indulge  in  acts,  words,  and  thoughts, 
that  are  exceedingly  questionable  as  to  their  character, 
in  which  they  claim  to  realize  no  compunctions  or  twinges 
of  conscience.  All  we  have  to  say  concerning  cases  of 
this  kind,  where  men  can  do  things  opposed  to  the  letter 
and  spirit  of  the  morals  of  the  Bible  yet  experience  no 
pain  of  conscience,  is,  their  conscience  must  be  in  a  very 
morbid  state — in  a  condition  well  calculated  to  cause 
alarm.  Conscience  unabused  will  always  be  on  the  side  of 
God  and  truth  when  it  knows  what  those  are.  From  what 
we  have  been  able  to  learn  of  our  poor  fallen  human 
nature  in  a  brief  lifetime,  we  doubt  not  that  men  may 
abuse  their  consciences  so  long  and  so  much  that  they 
become  identical  with  their  depraved  self  interests.  It 
has  come  to  such  a  pass  that  you  can  not  convince  a  liquor- 
seller  but  that  he  is  doing  right,  simply  because  he  finds 
the  business  lucrative.  As  we  heard  last  Sabbath,  some 
of  them  will  weep  "crocodile  tears"  over  the  very  ones 


CONSCIENCE.  177 

they  have  ruined,  and  yet  do  nothing  to  repair  that  ruin. 
Their  system  of  casuistry  is,  whatever  makes  me  rich  or 
ministers  to  my  unholy  passions  is  right.  Let  no  man 
then  urge  his  sincerity  as  a  plea  for  his  conduct,  or  that 
his  conscience  does  not  disapprove  of  his  course,  when  that 
course  is  at  variance  with  the  Bible  and  the  laws  of  na- 
ture. Men  are  always  responsible  for  their  ignorance 
when  that  ignorance  is  the  fruit  of  their  neglect  or  refusal 
to  improve  their  light  and  opportunities.  We  are  not 
accustomed  to  exculpate  criminals,  though  they  might 
plead  ignorance  of  the  laws  they  may  have  violated,  seeing 
they  might  have  known  that  there  were  such  laws  had 
they  sought  to  know.  A  man  who  has  eyes  and  will  not 
use  them,  can  not  urge  his  blindness  as  an  excuse  for  the 
results  of  that  willful  blindness.  He  must  and  will  be 
treated  as  if  he  had  done  wrong  with  his  eyes  open;  that 
is,  intentionally.  It  follows  inevitably  from  hence  that 
conscience  can  only  be  a  correct  guide  when  it  is  an  en- 
lightened Bible  conscience. 

The  only  questions  that  remain  to  be  settled  are :  Have 
we  a  perfect  expression  of  the  Divine  will?  Is  it  such 
that  for  all  practical  and  necessary  purposes  men  may 
become  sufficiently  acquainted  therewith,  so  as  always  to 
act  aright  under  the  circumstances?  We  think  so.  If 
men  will  they  can  learn  all  that  God  desires  them  to  know 
by  becoming  students  of  Nature  and  the  Bible,  but  espe- 
cially of  the  latter.  His  will  is  so  clearly  laid  down  and 
exhibited  in  these  two  wonderful  and  merciful  provisions, 
that  "he  may  read  that  runneth."  Together  they  are  as 
complete  and  harmonious  as  two  things  could  be.  These 
should  be  your  principal  study,  young  ladies  and  gentle- 
men. And  your  chief  aim  in  the  study  of  these  should 
be  to  thoroughly  acquaint  yourselves  with  the  will  of  your 
Creator,  that  you  may  do  that  will  "as  the  angels  do  in 
heaven."  They  have  no  other  business,  nor  have  we.  If 
men  conceive  that  they  were  born  for  any  other  purpose, 
they  have  utterly  mistaken  the  design  of  their  creation. 
Remember,  young  ladies  and  gentlemen,  that  your  Maker 
did  not  design  you  for  eating  and  sleeping  machines.  He 
12 


178  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

has  something  for  you  to  do  besides  digesting  beefsteaks 
and  decorating  the  body.  These  are  means  to  an  end, 
and  not  the  end  itself.  How  shameful  it  is  that  most  men 
stubbornly  persist  in  thinking  that  the  chief  end  of  life 
is  eating,  drinking,  sleeping,  and  dressing!  Old  Seneca 
said  long  ago,  without  a  Bible,  that  "men  are  to  eat,  that 
they  may  live;  not  live  that  they  may  eat."  Noble  old 
heathen,  would  that  you  could  continue  enlightening  us 
modern  men!  Eating  is  not  living;  living  is  loving  and 
obeying  God.  This  is  true  life;  nothing  else  can  be.  That 
man,  and  that  man  alone,  lives  to  purpose  who  becomes 
acquainted  with  God  and  learns  to  love  and  obey  Him. 
"The  fear  of  the  Lord  is  the  beginning  of  wisdom:  a  good 
understanding  have  all  they  that  do  His  commandments." 
That  life  is  not  a  failure  that  learns  thus  much,  though 
one  may  have  learned  little  else ;  all  others  are,  no  matter 
what  their  reputation  for  worldly  wisdom  and  valor.  All 
who  succeed  in  gaining  an  earthly  immortality — if  that 
deserves  to  be  named  immortality — as  heroes,  statesmen, 
and  scholars  merely,  are  nothing  more  than  splendid  fail- 
ures. To  learn  what  is  and  to  do  right  are  life's  only 
work.  Do  n't  fritter  it  away  in  pursuing  airy  nothings. 
Dare  to  be  "the  highest  style  of  man" — "a  Christian." 
Not  in  name,  but  in  deed  and  in  truth.  And  we  only  mean 
by  all  this,  cultivate  a  Bible  Conscience.  A  tender  and 
well-instructed  conscience  is  one  of  heaven's  best  gifts. 
An  intelligent  and  conscientious  man  is  one  of  Nature's 
noblemen.  Let  us  "exercise  ourselves  herein  to  have  al- 
ways a  conscience  void  of  offense  toward  God  and  toward 
men."  And  what  a  luxury  is  such  a  conscience !  Let  us 
all  so  live  that  we  may  be  able  always  to  say : 

"I  feel  within  me 
A  peace  above  all  earthly  dignities, 
A  still  and  quiet  conscience/' 


JOSEPH  IN  EGYPT.  179 

JOSEPH  IN  EGYPT. 

Lecture. 

Ancient  Canaan  and  Egypt  were  in  regular  commer- 
cial intercourse.  One  was  the  nurse  of  true  Religion,  the 
other  of  the  Arts  and  Sciences.  These  countries  are  both 
historic.  They  have  been  the  theaters  of  the  most  remark- 
able events  that  have  occurred  in  the  world.  These  have 
been  no  less  prolific  in  beneficial  consequences  to  man- 
kind than  they  were  in  the  almost  fabulous  richness  of 
their  respective  soils;  the  one  "flowing  with  milk  and 
honey,"  and  fertile  in  the  vine,  the  other  with  its  annually 
overflowing  Nile  enriching  the  soil  with  alluvial  deposits. 
Geographically  they  were  designed  by  Providence  to  exert 
a  far-reaching  influence  on  all  countries  and  succeeding 
nations  of  the  world  down  to  the  latest  generations  of 
men.  Egypt  gave  the  world  letters  and  science,  and 
Canaan  the  Bible  and  a  Savior.  Egypt  solves  the  greatest 
problem  of  religious  thought  of  this  and  past  ages,  viz. : 
that  unassisted  reason  can  not  rise  to  just  notions  of  its 
moral  relations  and  accountability  to  its  Creator.  The 
Hebrew  mind  illustrates  a  nation  under  the  influence  of  a 
Divine  revelation.  Canaan  gave  Egypt  a  savior  in  Joseph 
in  the  time  of  its  spiritual  famine,  and  Egypt  gave  Canaan 
corn  in  the  time  of  physical  famine.  We  can  guess  the 
different  destinies  of  these  two  nations.  Egypt's  history 
is  written  in  her  hieroglyphics,  crypts,  and  pyramids;  but 
the  nation  has  been  long  extinct.  The  history  of  the 
Hebrew  people  is  imperishably  engraved  by  the  finger  of 
God  in  the  immortal  Bible !  To-day  the  Hebrew  nation 
is  the  oldest  living  people  on  earth.  Like  Moses'  bush 
they  burn,  but  are  never  consumed. 

These  two  nations  also  illustrate  another  great  truth: 
that  God  has  created  necessary  interdependencies  between 
nations  as  between  individuals.  This  world  is  allied. 
"God  hath  made  of  one  blood  all  nations  of  men  to  dwell 
on  the  face  of  the  earth,  and  hath  determined  the  times 
before  appointed  and  the  bounds  of  their  habitation." 
Intercourse  is  to  be  kept  open.    We  must  become  better 


180  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

acquainted  with  each  other,  that  we  may  exchange  views 
and  feelings  as  well  as  products  and  do  each  other  good 
in  all  possible  ways.  It  is  thus  God  shows  the  doctrine  of 
universal  brotherhood. 

In  the  year  of  the  world  2220,  or  about  4,091  years  ago, 
there  lived  a  lad  of  seventeen  summers,  born  to  the  Patri- 
arch Jacob  (while  he  was  yet  serving  his  Uncle  Laban 
in  Syria  for  his  endeared  Rachel.  Jacob  returns  to  Canaan 
with  a  numerous  family.  It  was  here  that  Joseph,  through 
a  spirit  of  cruel  envy,  was  sold  into  slavery  to  some  Ish- 
maelitish  merchants).  He  was  the  darling  of  his  father's 
heart,  as  well  as  the  hope  of  a  vast  posterity.  His  sudden 
disappearance  was  at  once  the  grief  and  heavy  sorrow 
of  the  venerable  patriarch's  subsequent  and  eventful  life. 
For  twenty-three  long  years  he  rests  under  the  false  im- 
pression that  Joseph  had  met  a  violent  death  by  wild 
beasts  while  visiting  his  brethren  at  Shechem. 

It  is  with  Joseph's  life  in  Egypt  that  we  have  particu- 
larly to  do  in  this  hour's  lecture.  His  life  while  in  the 
land  of  Ham  is  full  of  thrilling  incidents  and  useful  les- 
sons. These  incidents  and  facts  throw  light  upon  his 
peerless  character.  And  it  is  the  character  of  this  young 
man  that  specially  concerns  the  young  men  that  hear  me. 
Character,  young  gentlemen,  is  everything.  Character 
forms  destiny.  His  mind  was  thoroughly  imbued  with  the 
principles  of  the  Hebrew  religion.  The  fear  of  God, 
which  "is  the  beginning  of  wisdom,"  will  alone  account 
for  his  remarkable  conduct  and  sterling  principle  in  the 
most  trying  circumstances  and  in  the  most  responsible 
position  in  which  a  man  could  be  placed.  Potiphar,  one 
of  Pharaoh's  chief  officers,  saw  in  Joseph  qualities  that 
soon  secured  him  a  position  of  grave  responsibility. 
Moses,  his  biographer,  who  was  born  and  reared  in  Egypt 
and  had  access  to  all  the  facts  of  Joseph's  life,  tells  us 
that  "the  Lord  was  with  Joseph  and  he  was  a  prosperous 
man  and  he  was  in  the  house  of  his  master  the  Egyptian. 
And  his  master  saw  that  the  Lord  was  with  him,  and  that 
the  Lord  made  all  that  he  did  to  prosper  in  his  hand. 
And  Joseph  found  grace  in  his  sight,  and  he  served  him ; 


JOSEPH  IN  EGYPT.  181 

and  he  made  him  overseer  over  his  house  and  all  that  he 
had  he  put  into  his  hand.  And  the  Lord  blessed  the 
Egyptian's  house  for  Joseph's  sake." 

This  simple  but  forcible  recital  of  Moses  gives  us  an 
insight  into  Joseph's  character,  and  the  key  to  his  success 
and  elevation  in  the  kingdom.  "The  Lord  was  with  him." 
That  is  sufficient  to  insure  any  man  success.  But  what 
was  equally  imporant  is  Joseph  was  with  the  Lord  also. 
He  was  God's  representative  in  the  midst  of  a  widespread 
idolatry.  Thus  Potiphar,  while  he  learned  the  great  value 
of  a  faithful  servant,  also  learned  something  of  Joseph's 
God.  He  learned  that  a  firm  belief  and  trust  in  Him 
made  a  man  a  better  man  in  all  the  relations  of  life.  The 
secret  of  his  success  is  to  be  found  in  his  singular  and 
manly  piety — in  his  fear  and  firm  trust  in  the  one  true 
and  living  God;  in  his  unwavering  faith  in  Divine  Provi- 
dence, and  in  the  unalterable  principles  of  right  and 
wrong  as  they  enter  into  human  conduct  in  this  and  the 
future  life.  No  man  has  learned  the  infallible  road  to 
salutary  success  who  has  not  learned  this  lesson.  Such 
a  man  will  never  be  place-hunting;  the  place  will  seek 
him  and  be  sure  to  find  him. 

Another  lesson  taught  in  the  life  of  Joseph  is,  that  the 
best  and  purest  men  are  not  out  of  the  reach  of  the 
calumny  of  wicked  men,  nor  their  well-laid  plans  to 
seduce  them  from  virtue's  paths  and  ruin  them;  and  that 
often  the  sorest  trials  are  in  store  for  them  in  a  quarter 
where  they  would  least  suspect  it.  Such  was  the  experi- 
ence of  this  young  Hebrew.  His  personal  charms  and 
manly  deportment  become  the  occasion  for  a  bad  woman 
to  plot  his  ruin  and  attempt  to  smirch  his  virtue.  This 
was  no  less  than  Potiphar's  wife,  a  courtly  woman,  who 
became  enamored  of  his  beauty.  But  her  unlawful  ad- 
vances and  adulterous  solicitations  were  met  with  a  simple 
but  heroic  courage  in  the  following  honest  words :  "Be- 
hold my  master  wotteth  not  what  is  in  the  house  with 
me,  and  he  hath  committed  all  that  he  hath  to  my  hand: 
neither  hath  he  kept  back  anything  from  me  but  thee, 
because   thou   art   his   wife:    how   can    I    do    this    great 


1 82  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

wickedness  and  sin  against  God."  A  reply  worthy  the 
purest  and  highest  virtue !  And  betraying  the  keenest 
sense  of  another's  rights — even  his  master's.  But  this 
noble  and  manly  reply  was  not  enough  to  shame  his 
mistress  into  at  least  a  constrained  chastity;  but  as  oppor- 
tunity offered  she  renewed  her  hellish  solicitations,  but 
with  no  better  success  than  before,  till  at  length  to  make 
her  purpose  good  she  seized  him  by  the  garment,  which  he 
left  behind  in  his  miraculous  escape.  This  was  a  tempta- 
tion redhot  from  hell ;  and  never  was  there  a  more  glorious 
victor  than  he.  Virtue  never  gained  a  greater  nor  more 
signal  triumph  !  Never  was  a  devil  incarnate  met  by  a 
nobler  manliness  than  in  this  instance  !  But  mark !  The 
wickedness  that  had  been  fairly  beaten  on  its  own  vantage 
ground,  with  infernal  hate  and  ingenuity  strives  to  ruin 
and  stain  forever  the  fair  name  and  reputation  that  had 
just  triumphantly  maintained  its  integrity  and  conscious 
innocence  in  addition  to  saving  her  own  character  from 
the  guilt  of  open  adultery.  I  say,  see  her  hellish  attempt 
to  ruin  Joseph  by  informing  on  him  for  an  alleged  attempt 
of  the  very  thing  he  had  escaped  by  the  sternest  resistance 
and  most  consummate  integrity.;  see  her,  will  you,  taking 
the  very  garment  left  in  her  adulterous  hand  by  his  virtu- 
ous escape,  and  learn  how  much  of  a  devil  an  angel  may 
become !  Thus  you  see  what  it  costs  sometimes  to  be 
true  to  God,  yourself,  and  your  fellow-man !  In  this  in- 
stance it  cost  Joseph  two  long,  weary  years  of  prison  life. 
It  cost  Daniel  a  lion's  den,  and  his  companions  a  fiery 
furnace.  The  lie  of  the  unfaithful  wife  and  the  remnant 
of  Joseph's  garment  were  evidence  enough  in  the  absence 
of  counter  testimony  to  convict  Joseph.  But  innocence, 
though  victorious,  is  sometimes  permitted  to  be  under  a 
cloud  till  a  just  God  vindicates  it,  as  He  is  bound  and 
pledged  to  do.  Joseph  is  cast  into  prison,  deposed  from 
the  trust  he  had  so  faithfully  and  successfully  performed 
and  with  the  loss  of  an  enviable  reputation  that  had  been 
meritoriously  won.  Ah !  this  is  a  hard  and  inscrutable 
Providence.  To  be  imprisoned  for  guilt  is  bearable;  but 
to  be  incarcerated  for  virtue  and  a  noble  attempt  to  do 


JOSEPH  IN  EGYPT.  183 

right  is  a  sharp  trial  of  one's  faith  in  God  and  in  the  right, 
but  so  it  turns  out  sometimes  with  the  good.  "Joseph's 
feet  they  hurt  with  fetters;  he  was  laid  in  irons  until  the 
time  that  His  word  came;  the  Word  of  the  Lord  tried 
him.,,  "But  the  Lord  was  with  Joseph  and  showed  him 
mercy,  and  gave  him  favor  in  the  sight  of  the  keeper  of 
the  prison."  God,  true  to  His  character,  will  not  allow 
innocence  and  virtue  to  go  unrewarded,  though  He  some- 
times permits  them  to  be  under  a  temporary  eclipse.  In 
this  case  he  mitigates  the  rigors  of  his  prison  life  by 
giving  him  favor  in  the  eyes  of  the  jailor,  who  made 
Joseph  overseer  of  all  the  prisoners.  How  soon  merit 
wins  its  way !  Faithful  even  in  the  dark  prison  where 
hearts  less  courageous  would  have  given  way  to  gloom 
and  repinings.  Now  observe  how  God  vinidicates  injured 
innocence  and  paves  the  way  for  his  release  from  the 
prison  Potiphar's  wife  so  richly  deserved  (and  would  have 
received  but  for  the  youth  who  was  proof  against  her 
devilish  machinations).  Having  by  his  transparent  hon- 
esty secured  the  confidence  of  the  jailor,  who  commits 
to  him  the  care  of  all  the  prisoners,  an  event  occurred 
that  brought  Joseph  to  notice.  There  were  two  notable 
prisoners  here  who  had  incurred  the  displeasure  of  King 
Pharaoh.  These  were  his  chief  cup-bearer  and  chief 
baker.  As  Joseph  passed  from  ward  to  ward  overlooking 
the  prisoners,  he  observed  these  two  men  to  be  in  great 
distress  of  mind.  He  inquired  the  cause  of  their  troubles, 
and  was  informed  that  they  had  each  an  unpleasant  and 
strange  dream.  They  related  their  dreams,  and  Joseph 
interpreted  them.  The  butler  was  to  be  released  and  re- 
stored to  his  butlership,  and  the  baker  was  to  lose  his 
head.  Joseph  on  telling  the  butler  of  his  restoration  made 
this  reasonable  request  of  him :  "Think  on  me  when  it  shall 
be  well  with  thee  and  shew  kindness  I  pray  thee  unto  me, 
and  make  mention  unto  Pharaoh  and  bring  me  out  of 
this  house;  for  indeed  I  was  stolen  away  out  of  the  land 
of  the  Hebrews;  and  here  also  have  I  done  nothing  that 
they  should  put  me  into  the  dungeon."  But,  strange  to 
tell,  this  butler,  who  owed  his  release  to  Joseph,  forgot 


184  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

to  mention  his  case  to  Pharaoh.  Thus  it  is  extremes 
sometimes  meet — the  greatest  generosity  and  the  basest 
ingratitude.  The  undeserving  go  free  and  the  innocent 
is  left  to  suffer;  (because  one  is  too  honest  to  take  ad- 
vantage of  his  position  and  escape,  and  the  other  is  helped 
out  of  his  dilemma  by  the  magnanimity  and  intelligence 
of  his  companion  in  suffering.)  These  contrasts  remind 
us  that  good  and  evil  are  strangely  mingled  in  this  world, 
and  that  evil  appears  often  to  be  greatly  in  excess  of 
good.  Still  these  are  so  well  defined  in  their  widely  differ- 
ent consequences  and  influences  as  to  give  virtue  the  de- 
cided advantage  in  the  final  issue. 

Owing  to  the  base  ingratitude  of  Pharaoh's  butler, 
Joseph  is  left  to  the  loneliness  of  his  prison  life  till  two 
years  had  expired.  A  narrow  view — as  narrow  and  mean 
as  the  butler's  gratitude — would  say  that  Joseph's  God 
was  slow  to  vindicate  his  faithful  and  innocent  servant 
from  the  base  and  false  charges  of  Potiphar's  wife.  But 
God  is  not  conniving  at  her  sin  by  His  apparent  delay 
to  bring  about  his  release,  nor  does  Joseph  feel  that  He 
is.  If  human  means  are  to  play  any  part  in  his  release 
and  vindication,  God  intends  that  they  shall  be. the  most 
honorable,  and  such  too  as  will  do  credit  to  infinite  wis- 
dom and  goodness,  and  most  certainly  place  Joseph  in  a 
most  enviable  position  before  his  vile  traducer  and  his 
master  Potiphar,  who  placed  him  there.  Had  the  chief 
butler  secured  his  release  from  prison  it  would  not  have 
been  very  greatly  to  Joseph's  credit,  though  it  might  have 
spoken  well  for  the  butler's  gratitude.  He  was  only  a 
cup-bearer  to  his  majesty,  and  probably  not  a  very  worthy 
one  at  that.  God  has,  however,  a  higher  honor  for  Joseph 
than  to  have  been  released  by  this  butler.  Pharaoh,  the 
sovereign  of  all  Egypt,  is  God's  chosen  instrument  to  do 
this  work.  This  same  Pharaoh  is  to  be  brought  under 
the  most  special  and  weighty  obligations  to  lead  him  forth 
from  obscurity  and  guiltless  ignominy  to  the  second  place 
in  the  kingdom.  It  happened  on  this  wise :  Pharaoh  has 
two  dreams  foreshadowing  great  suffering  and  trouble 
to  his  family  and  subjects.    He  sends  for  all  the  magicians 


JOSEPH  IN  EGYPT.  185 

and  wise  men  of  his  realm  to  interpret  his  dreams,  but 
they  could  not.    Then  this  butler,  who  had  forgotten  to  be 
generous  to  his  Hebrew  benefactor,  says  to  Pharaoh,  "I 
do  remember  my  faults  this  day."     He  has  a  little  con- 
science left,  has  he  not?    "While  in  prison  I  and  the  chief 
baker  had  a  dream,  and  there  was  with  us  a  young  man, 
an  Hebrew  servant  to  the  captain  of  the  guard,  and  we 
told  him  and  he  interpreted  to  us  our  dreams,  and  it  came 
to   pass   as   he   interpreted   to   us."     And   then   Pharaoh 
sent  and  called  Joseph.     They  brought  him  hastily  out 
of  the  dungeon  and  shaved  him.    Now  that  he  is  in  a  pre- 
sentable condition  he  stands  before  the  crowned  head  of 
the   greatest   nation   then   on   earth.     He    stands   before 
Pharaoh  no  longer  a  slave  and  prisoner,  but  God's  free- 
man.   Then  said  Pharaoh,  "I  have  dreamed  a  dream,  and 
there  is  none  that  can  interpret  it:  and  I  have  heard  say 
of  thee;"  yes,  of  thee — God  will  see  to  it  that  such  virtue 
and  integrity  shall  not  remain  in  ignominy  and  obscurity, 
but  shall  have  a  theater  for  their  display  worthy  of  them — 
"I  have  heard  say  of  thee,  that  thou  canst  understand  a 
dream  to  interpret  it."     But  listen  to  the  modesty  of  true 
merit  and  genuine  piety !     Prison  life  has  not  made   a 
parenthesis  in  this  young  man's   faith  and  affection;   it 
has  rather  intensified  and  increased  them.    You  that  have 
ears  to  hear   and   intellects   to   appreciate,   hear   it.     He 
answered  Pharaoh,  saying,  "It  is  not  in  me :  God  shall 
give  Pharaoh  an  answer  of  peace."     Mark  this  emphatic 
recognition  of  God  !    This  is  true  piety  !    No  self-seeking 
here — no   ambition   for   place   or   notoriety !     It  is  place 
and  notoriety  seeking  a  man !     It  is  Divine  Providence 
and  infinite  wisdom  bringing  the  right  man  to  the  right 
place.    Calling  him  out  in  an  exigency  without  ambitious 
lusting,    planning,    and    political    strategy    on    his    part. 
Pharaoh  is  informed  that  a  sore  and  grievous  famine  of 
seven  years'  continuance  was  to  come  on  all  the  known 
world  after  seven  years'  plenty.     To  meet  this  terrible 
scourge  there  must  be  some  ruling  mind  of  great  financial 
sagacity  and  grasp  of  statesmanship,  and  withal  of  broad 
philanthropy  and  sterling  integrity,  free  from  mercenari- 


186  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

ness,  who  shall  be  Prime  Minister  and  financial  secretary 
of  a  great  nation  in  a  special  emergency.  But  who  shall 
he  be?  Joseph  never  once  suspects  that  such  a  trust  and 
responsibility  are  awaiting  him.  Joseph  tells  Pharaoh  to 
select  a  man  "discreet  and  wise;"*  but  who  thought 
Pharaoh  was  so  discreet  and  wise  as  Joseph  ?  True  merit 
is  unsuspecting,  unambitious,  and  unaspiring,  but  gravi- 
tates to  its  place  as  certainly  as  the  planets  do  to  their 
orbits.  Joseph  modestly  enters  upon  the  career  for  which 
Providence  and  his  eminent  qualities  of  mind  and  heart 
had  fitted  him.  Here  it  was  that  he  displayed  his  tran- 
scendent genius,  and  has  made  himself  immortal  by  his 
words  and  deeds.  Such  a  position  became  the  man,  and 
his  official  career  of  twenty-six  years  fully  justified  the 
wisdom  of  Pharaoh's  choice. 

ff he  generous  crops  of  seven  years  are  safely  garnered 
and  husbanded  with  economic  foresight  against  the  seven 
years  of  famine.  The  famine  came  with  all  its  predicted 
severity  and  prevalence,  visiting  the  land  of  his  father 
and  brethren  on  the  western  shore  of  the  Mediterranean 
or  Great  Sea,  as  well  as  Egypt  and  surrounding  countries. 
Joseph's  brethren  not  taking  the  wise  precaution  that  he 
had  done,  soon  found  their  supplies  exhausted,  and  had  to 
look  to  surrounding  nations  for  food.  Jacob,  his  father, 
having  heard  that  there  was  corn  in  Egypt,  said  unto  his 
sons,  "Why  do  ye  look  upon  one  another  ?  Get  you  down 
to  Egypt  and  buy  for  us,  that  we  may  live  and  not  die." 
Pinching  want  drives  ten  of  Joseph's  brethren  down  to 
Egypt  to  buy  corn.  These  are  the  brethren  who  through 
envy  sold  Joseph  to  the  Ishmaelitish  merchants.  These 
are  the  names  of  the  ten  brothers :  Reuben,  Simeon,  Levi, 
Judah,  Issachar,  Zebulun,  Dan,  Naphtali,  Gad,  and  Asher. 
These  are  the  gentlemen  who,  to  conceal  their  crime,  told 
their  father  that  wild  beasts  had  torn  him.  About  twenty- 
one  years  have  elapsed,  pregnant  with  singular  and  start- 
ling events,  without  hearing  one  word  of  the  long-lost 
brother.  Whether  dead  or  alive,  they  know  not;  if  alive, 
whether  rich  or  poor,  a  slave  or  a  ruler,  was  alike  un- 
known; whether  in  Egypt  or  India  they  know  not,  or 


JOSEPH  IN  EGYPT.  187 

whether  they  would  ever  see  his  face  again  was  infinitely 
more  doubtful  than  certain.  God  has  a  surprise  in  store 
for  these  ungenerous  brothers  that  will  overwhelm  them 
with  alternate  penitence  and  joy.  Let  us  see  how  this 
was  brought  about,  and  how  Joseph  was  made  known  to 
his  brethren.  It  was  his  special  business  as  governor 
of  the  land  to  oversee  the  sales  of  the  corn.  He  is  thus 
brought  in  contact  with  his  brethren.  He  being  a  lad 
when  they  sold  him  had  grown  out  of  their  knowledge, 
and  wearing  the  costume  of  the  country  where  he  lived 
completely  disguised  him.  But  he  knew  them.  Joseph's 
dream  of  his  brethren's  sheaves  making  obeisance  to  his 
now  meets  its  fulfillment  for  the  first  time.  Little  did  he 
or  they  know  how  this  dream  was  to  be  realized,  but  see- 
ing them  prostrate  themselves  before  him  after  the  custom 
of  Oriental  lands  he  "remembered  the  dreams  that  he 
dreamed  of  them.,,  That  he  knew  them  is  evident  from 
his  studiously  concealing  the  fact  from  them.  He  put  on 
an  unnatural  reserve  the  better  to  disguise  himself.  He 
charges  them  with  being  "spies."  "Nay,  my  lord,"  they 
reply,  "but  to  buy  food  are  thy  servants  come.  We  are  all 
one  man's  sons;  we  are  true  men;  thy  servants  are  no 
spies."  He  again  charges  them  with  being  spies ;  but  they 
emphatically  assure  him  to  the  contrary,  saying:  "Thy 
servants  are  twelve  brethren,  the  sons  of  one  man  in  the 
land  of  Canaan,  and  behold  the  youngest  is  this  day  with 
our  father  and  one  is  not."  "And  one  is  not."  How  the 
short  sentence,  "one  is  not,"  came  home  with  telling  force 
to  Joseph's  sensitive  and  manly  heart !  And  then  to  be 
reminded  that  his  patriarch  father  was  still  alive !  By  a 
vigorous  effort  he  summons  his  will,  represses  his  strug- 
gling emotions,  and  charges  them  again  with  being  "spies." 
To  prove  them  said  he:  "Except  your  youngest  brother 
come  hither  ye  shall  not  return  to  your  own  land.  Send 
one  of  you  and  let  him  fetch  your  brother,  and  ye  shall 
be  kept  in  prison  that  your  words  may  be  proved  whether 
there  be  any  truth  in  you."  And  he  put  them  all  in  prison 
for  three  days.  And  Joseph  said  unto  them  the  third  day : 
"This  do  and  live,  for  I  fear  God.    If  ye  be  true  men  let 


188  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

one  of  your  brethren  be  bound  in  prison;  but  go  ye,  carry 
corn  for  the  famine  of  your  houses  and  bring  your  young- 
est brother  unto  me,  so  shall  your  words  be  verified  and 
ye  shall  not  die."    And  they  did  so. 

This  is  an  hour  of  sharp  trial  and  pungent  reflection 
with  ten  brothers.  "They  said  one  to  another"  in  Joseph's 
presence :  "We  are  verily  guilty  concerning  our  brother  in 
that  we  saw  the  anguish  of  his  soul  when  he  besought  us, 
and  we  would  not  hear;  therefore  is  this  distress  come 
upon  us."  (Joseph  speaking  through  an  interpreter  is 
supposed  not  to  understand  what  they  said.)  Joseph's 
unnatural  treatment  of  them  at  this  time  was  intended  to 
awaken  this  very  feeling  and  provoke  this  confession. 
Reuben,  who  had  interposed  in  Joseph's  behalf  when  the 
other  brethren  were  determined  to  kill  him,  now  reminds 
them  of  that  occasion  in  the  following  words :  "Spake  not 
I  unto  you,  saying:  Do  not  sin  against  the  child;  and  ye 
would  not  hear;  therefore  behold  also  his  blood  is  re- 
quired." This  speech  of  Reuben  was  too  much  for  his 
emotional  nature,  and  he  had  to  retire  to  weep.  Having 
dried  his  tears  and  recovered  himself  sufficiently,  he  re- 
sumes the  business.  He  takes  Simeon  and  binds  him 
before  their  eyes  as  a  hostage  for  the  safe  return  of  the 
others  and  Benjamin.  If  Simeon  was  the  one  who  bound 
the  youthful  Joseph  (as  some  think)  and  put  him  into 
the  pit,  this  selecting  him  as  the  pledge  and  putting  him 
in  prison  till  the  return  of  his  brethren  was  well  calcu- 
lated to  remind  him  of  the  unbrotherly  part  he  played 
in  that  cruel  transaction  verifying  the  saying,  "With 
what  measure  ye  mete,  it  shall  be  measured  to  you 
again." 

The  other  nine  have  started  on  their  homeward  journey 
well  laden  with  corn  and  other  provisions.  As  one  of  the 
number  opens  his  sack  of  provender  to  feed  his  beast  he 
discovers  his  money  in  the  sack's  mouth,  and  says  to  his 
brethren,  "Behold,  my  money  is  restored."  Their  hearts 
sink  within  them  from  fear,  lest  this  circumstance  should 
lay  them  open  to  the  suspicion  of  dishonesty  and  be  in  the 
way  of  their  return  in  the  future.    Having  reached  home 


JOSEPH  IN  EGYPT.  189 

they  relate  what  had  taken  place  in  Egypt,  and  how  that 
Simeon  had  been  detained  as  a  pledge  that  they  would 
return  and  bring  Benjamin  with  them.  The  father's  heart 
sank  within  him  at  the  sad  intelligence  and  hard  demand 
to  give  up  his  Benjamin.  Hear  him:  "Me  ye  have  be- 
reaved of  my  children.  Joseph  is  not,  and  Simeon  is  not, 
and  ye  will  take  Benjamin  away:  all  these  things  are 
against  me." 

Reuben,  who  seemed  forward  to  speak  on  all  occasions, 
replied  to  the  gray-haired  sire :  "Slay  my  two  sons  if  I 
bring  him  not  to  thee ;  deliver  him  into  my  hand  and  I  will 
bring  him  to  thee  again."  The  patriarch's  reply  is  natural 
and  emphatic :  "My  son  shall  not  go  down  with  you,  for 
his  brother  (Joseph)  is  dead  and  he  is  left  alone:  if  mis- 
chief befall  him  in  the  way  in  which  ye  go,  then  ye  shall 
bring  down  my  gray  hairs  with  sorrow  to  the  grave." 

But  the  pressure  of  the  famine  caused  the  father  to 
yield  to  the  severe  demand,  as  it  was  the  only  condition 
upon  which  they  could  redeem  Simeon  and  procure  the 
necessaries  of  life.  Said  Jacob  in  genuine  parental  grief: 
"Wherefore  dealt  ye  so  ill  with  me,  as  to  tell  the  man" — 
the  man ! — "whether  ye  had  yet  a  brother  ?"  But  stern 
necessity  is  upon  him,  and  he  resolves  to  make  the  best  of 
the  situation.  He  leaves  no  means  untried  to  conciliate 
the  governor  of  Egypt  so  as  to  secure  the  return  of  his 
Simeon  and  Benjamin.  Having  changed  his  mind,  he 
thus  replies  to  Judah :  "If  it  be  must  so,  now  do  this :  take 
of  the  best  fruits  of  the  land  in  your  vessels,  and  carry 
down  to  the  man  a  present — a  little  balm,  and  a  little  honey, 
spices,  and  myrrh,  nuts  and  almonds.  And  take  double 
money  in  your  hand;  peradventure  it  was  an  oversight: 
take  also  your  brother  (Benjamin,  yes  Benjamin!); 
arise  and  go  again  unto  the  man,  that  he  may  send  away 
your  other  brother  and  Benjamin:  If  I  am  bereaved  of 
my  children,  I  am  bereaved."  A  most  touching  scene 
then  occurred  between  Judah  and  his  father  on  the  eve 
of  their  departure  for  Egypt.  Mark  the  tender-hearted 
parent  with  humane  and  paternal  impulses  subjected  to 
the  severest  test  of  faith  and  natural  emotion  by  a  demand 


i9o  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

to  give  up  his  youngest  son  under  the  pretext  of  redeem- 
ing an  older  brother  who  is  detained  as  a  hostage  by  a 
foreign  prince  for  the  safe  return  of  the  first  deputation. 
When  we  reflect,  too,  that  this  was  an  age  of  human 
slavery,  and  that  Egypt  was  addicted  to  it,  we  will  be 
somewhat  prepared  to  appreciate  the  patriarch's  fears  and 
misgivings.  Add  to  this  his  bitter  experience  in  the  loss 
of  Joseph  many  years  before,  and  the  sore  calamity  in  the 
recent  probable  loss  of  Simeon,  these  things  all  conspired 
to  awaken  alarm  and  convulse  his  heart  with  genuine  grief 
so  as  truly  to  embitter  his  old  age  and  extort  the  lament: 
"If  I  am  bereaved  of  my  children  I  am  bereaved !"  What 
simplicity  and  telling  force  there  are  in  these  spontaneous 
words  !  And  then  Judah's  filial  and  brave  attempt  to  allay 
parental  fears  and  grief,  though  full  of  generosity  and 
strong  faith:  yet  how  impotent  to  meet  the  terrible  and 
crushing  exigency  that  was  now  upon  that  struggling, 
throbbing  heart.  "I  will  be  surety  for  Benjamin:  of  me 
shalt  thou  require  him :  if  I  bring  him  not  unto  thee,  then 
let  me  bear  the  blame  forever."  Noble  and  eloquent  words 
these !  But  not  so  eloquent  as  the  occasion  and  reply  of 
the  father's  profound  grief !  Had  it  been  recorded,  it 
would  have  been  something  like  the  following:  "Judah, 
my  son,  I  doubt  not  your  manly  generosity  and  fraternal 
affection  for  Benjamin,  but  I  remember  that  you  are  a 
man.  You  are  quite  confident  of  returning  my  dear  boy; 
but  you  were  equally  confident  in  bringing  back  Simeon; 
'but  Simeon  is  not/  Your  being  ready  to  bear  the  blame 
'forever'  is  manly  and  heroic ;  but  what  will  all  that  avail 
in  case  he  is  lost?  It  only  shows  you  to  be  a  noble  son 
and  true  brother,  but  it  allays  not  my  fearful  forebodings ! 
Reuben  has  even  gone  further,  and  pledged  me  his  own 
sons  in  case  of  any  mishap  to  my  fond  Benjamin.  It  is 
true  they  are  as  dear  to  him  as  Benjamin  is  to  me,  but 
that  kind  of  security  does  not  change  our  native  impulses." 
But  what  these  eloquent  appeals  of  Reuben  and  Judah 
failed  to  do,  the  very  native  impulses  of  which  we  speak 
as  if  by  magic  bring  about.  Jacob  sees  not  only  the  loss 
of  Simeon  and  Benjamin  in  the  apparently  harsh  demand 


JOSEPH  IN  EGYPT.  191 

of  "the  man"  down  in  Egypt,  but  in  the  sore  famine  with 
its  grim  and  stern  visage  he  sees  the  certain  loss  of  the 
entire  family  and  his  fellow-countrymen.  All  the  famines 
that  ever  scourged  our  earth,  were  they  concentrated  in 
one,  could  never  cause  a  true  father  to  give  up  his  son 
unless  the  life  of  that  son  was  involved  in  the  giving  him 
up.  This  is  precisely  the  case  before  us — the  life  of  Ben- 
jamin and  the  whole  family  were  involved.  We  bow  in 
tender  awe  in  the  presence  of  this  affecting  scene.  But 
we  must  draw  the  curtain  and  pass  to  the  second  inter- 
view of  Joseph  and  his  brethren. 

Passing  by  the  events  of  the  long  journey,  imagine 
you  see  Joseph's  ten  brethren  just  arrived  in  front  of  his 
palace  in  one  of  the  magnificent  cities  of  Egypt,  say  Mem- 
phis or  Thebes.  When  Joseph  saw  Benjamin  among  the 
brothers  he  ordered  his  steward  to  invite  them  in.  Simeon 
is  released,  and  is  one  of  the  guests.  There  is  a  marked 
change  in  the  conduct  of  Joseph  toward  his  brethren. 
They  are  admitted  to  his  hospitality.  Great  preparations 
are  made  for  their  entertainment.  On  being  invited  to 
dine  in  the  palatial  mansion,  the  guests  betray  some  fear 
lest  it  was  a  plan  to  investigate  the  matter  of  the  money 
found  in  their  sacks.  They  really  thought  Joseph  was 
seeking  "occasion  against  them,"  and  did  not  know  but 
it  might  result  in  making  prisoners  of  all  of  them.  No 
doubt  Reuben  and  Judah  thought  of  the  brave  speeches 
and  pledges  they  had  made  recently  to  their  father  re- 
specting the  safe  return  of  Benjamin  and  the  apparent 
probability  that  his  fearful  apprehensions  might  yet  be 
realized,  and  even  more,  that  he  might  not  only  not  see 
Simeon  and  Benjamin,  but  he  might  not  see  any  of  them 
again.  As  soon  therefore  as  they  met  Joseph's  steward 
they  began  to  anticipate  the  charge  they  feared  would  be 
brought  against  them  in  the  matter  of  money  found  in 
their  sacks :  "O  sir,  we  came  indeed  down  at  the  first  to 
buy  food;  and  it  came  to  pass  when  we  came  to  the  inn 
that  we  opened  our  sacks,  and  behold  every  man's  money 
was  in  the  mouth  of  his  sack;  and  we  have  brought  it 
again  in  our  hand.    And  other  money  have  we  brought 


192  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

down  in  our  hand  to  buy  food:  we  can  not  tell  who  put 
the  money  in  our  sacks."  They  wait  with  breathless 
anxiety  his  reply.  How  unlike  the  answer  their  fears  had 
conjured  up.  "Peace  be  to  you;  fear  not,  your  God  and 
the  God  of  your  father  hath  given  you  treasure  in  your 
sacks ;  I  had  your  money." 

Being  notified  of  the  ruler's  intention  to  have  them 
dine  with  him,  they  thought  it  a  suitable  time  to  present 
the  gifts  sent  by  their  father.  As  they  entered  the  palace 
about  noon,  they  bowed  themselves  before  Joseph  and 
made  their  present,  telling  him  at  the  same  time  from 
whom  it  came.  The  ruler  asks  them  of  their  welfare,  and 
if  their  father  were  well.  "The  old  man  of  whom  ye 
spake,  is  he  yet  alive?"  Said  they  with  respectful  obei- 
sance: "Thy  servant  our  father  is  in  good  health;  he  is 
yet  alive."  Joseph  then  turning  to  the  youngest  of  the 
eleven,  asked :  "Is  this  your  youngest  brother  of  whom  ye 
spake  to  me?"  And  he  said,  "God  be  gracious  unto  thee, 
my  son."  This  sight  was  more  than  Joseph  could  bear.  The 
memories  of  the  past,  of  home,  of  father  and  mother,  and 
the  brethren  present  force  him  to  retire  and  weep  !  After 
weeping  some  time  in  his  chamber,  he  washed  himself  and 
ordered  the  steward  to  set  on  bread.  As  it  was  the  custom 
for  Egyptian  rulers  to  eat  by  themselves,  they  set  Joseph's 
table  by  itself.  He  avails  himself  of  this  custom,  the 
longer  to  conceal  the  fact  that  he  is  their  brother;  they 
are  seated  according  to  their  ages.  During  the  meal  he 
sent  messes  from  his  table  to  them;  but  sent  Benjamin 
"five  times"  more  than  to  the  others,  with  the  design 
doubtless  of  exciting  their  curiosity  and  further  testing 
them,  and  preparing  the  way  for  his  intended  revelation 
that  he  was  the  same  Joseph  whom  they  had  sold  to  the 
merchants  at  Dothan.  But  Joseph  intends  to  humiliate 
them  once  more  before  making  himself  known  to  them. 
The  steward  having  filled  their  sacks  with  corn  and  food, 
is  ordered  to  put  every  man's  money  into  his  sack,  and 
Joseph's  own  silver  cup  into  Benjamin's  sack.  All  things 
ready  the  caravan  starts  off  for  Canaan.  There  are  eleven 
light  and  happy  hearts  in  that  company.    But  they  had  not 


JOSEPH  IN  EGYPT.  193 

proceeded  far  till  a  messenger  overtook  them  and  de- 
manded their  return.  How  soon,  alas !  their  happiness 
gives  way  to  fear  and  sadness !  They  are  met  with  the 
stunning  charge  that  some  one  of  the  company  had  stolen 
the  ruler's  silver  cup  from  which  he  drank.  With  supreme 
astonishment  they  affirm  their  innocence  by  an  appeal  to 
their  former  honesty  in  returning  the  money  in  their  sacks. 
With  conscious  pride  and  innocence  they  reply:  "With 
whosomever  of  thy  servants  it  be  found  both  let  him  die, 
and  we  also  will  be  my  lord's  bondsmen."  The  steward 
quickly  replied:  "Let  it  be  according  unto  your  words; 
he  with  whom  it  shall  be  found  shall  be  my  servant  and 
ye  shall  be  blameless."  The  terms  are  less  severe  than 
they  themselves  had  proposed ;  but  severe  enough  to  thwart 
their  promises  with  their  anxious  and  expectant  parent. 
How  little  did  they  realize  that  their  agreement  was  going 
to  involve  them  in  the  very  dilemma  their  father  most 
feared.  The  search  begins.  The  beasts  are  unladed. 
They  commence  with  the  eldest  and  end  with  Benjamin. 
Ill-luck  to  the  brethren !  Benjamin  is  convicted  of  the 
theft.  In  their  confusion  and  grief  they  rent  every  man 
his  clothes,  and  returned  to  the  city  to  await  their  fate. 
Judah  and  his  brethren  came  to  the  ruler  and  fell  prostrate 
before  him  to  receive  the  rebuke  and  penalty  of  Benja- 
min's guilt.  Said  he  to  them,  "What  deed  is  this  that  ye 
have  done?"  Judah  in  behalf  of  his  distressed  brethren 
speaks  for  them  and  himself.  And  we  think  there  never 
was  more  eloquence  and  pathos  couched  in  so  many  words. 
Let  us  hear  that  speech :  "What  shall  we  say  unto  my 
lord?  What  shall  we  speak?  or  how  shall  we  clear  our- 
selves ?  God  hath  found  out  the  inquity  of  thy  servants : 
behold  we  are  my  lord's  servants,  both  we  and  he  also  with 
whom  the  cup  is  found."  Joseph  here  interrupts  him  by 
saying:  "God  forbid  that  I  should  do  so;  but  the  man  in 
whose  hand  the  cup  is  found  he  shall  be  my  servant;  and 
as  for  you,  get  you  up  in  peace  unto  your  father."  Then 
Judah  came  near  unto  him  and  said:  O  my  lord,  let  thy 
servant,  I  pray  thee,  speak  a  word  in  my  lord's  ears,  and 
let  not  thine  anger  burn  against  thy  servant;  for  thou  art 

13 


194  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

even  as  Pharaoh.  My  lord  asked  his  servants,  "Have  ye 
a  father  or  a  brother?  And  we  said  unto  my  lord,  we 
have  a  father,  an  old  man,  and  a  child  of  his  age,  a  little 
one:  and  his  brother  is  dead  and  he  alone  is  left  of  his 
mother,  and  his  father  loveth  him.  And  thou  saidst  unto 
thy  servants,  Bring  him  down  unto  me  that  I  may  set 
mine  eyes  upon  him.  And  we  said  unto  my  lord,  'The 
lad  can  not  leave  his  father,  for  if  he  should  leave  his 
father,  his  father  would  die.  And  thou  saidst  unto  thy 
servants,  Except  your  youngest  brother  come  down  with 
you,  ye  shall  see  my  face  no  more.  And  it  came  to  pass, 
when  we  came  up  unto  thy  servant  my  father,  we  told 
him  the  words  of  my  lord.  And  our  father  said,  Go  and 
buy  us  a  little  food.  And  we  said,  we  can  not  go  down; 
if  our  youngest  brother  be  with  us,  then  we  will  go  down; 
for  we  may  not  see  the  man's  face  except  our  youngest 
brother  be  with  us.  And  thy  servant  my  father  said  unto 
us,  Ye  know  that  my  wife  bare  me  two  sons  and  the  one 
went  out  from  me  and  I  said,  Surely  he  is  torn  in  pieces; 
and  I  saw  him  not  since;  and  if  ye  take  this  also  from 
me,  and  mischief  befall  him,  ye  shall  bring  down  my  gray 
hairs  with  sorrow  to  the  grave.  Now  therefore  when  I 
come  to  thy  servant  my  father  and  the  lad  be  not  with 
us;  (seeing  his  life  is  bound  up  in  the  lad's  life)  it  shall 
come  to  pass,  when  he  seeth  the  lad  is  not  with  us  that 
he  will  die:  and  thy  servants  shall  bring  down  the  gray 
hairs  of  thy  servant  our  father  with  sorrow  to  the  grave. 
For  thy  servant  became  surety  for  the  lad  unto  my  father 
saying:  If  I  bring  him  not  to  thee,  then  I  shall  bear  the 
blame  to  my  father  forever.  Now  therefore  I  pray  thee, 
let  thy  servant  abide  instead  of  the  lad  a  bondman  to  my 
lord;  and  let  the  lad  go  up  with  his  brethren.  For  how 
shall  I  go  up  to  my  father  and  the  lad  not  be  with  me? 
lest  peradventure  I  see  the  evil  that  shall  come  on  my 
father."  "Then  Joseph  could  not  refrain  himself  before 
all  them  that  stood  by  and  he  cried,  Cause  every  man  to 
go  out  from  me  and  he  made  himself  known  to  his  breth- 
ren and  he  wept  aloud."  How  he  could  have  done  other- 
wise after  such  a  touching  appeal  we  can  not  see.    It  is 


JOSEPH  IN  EGYPT.  195 

not  in  unperverted  human  nature  to  withstand  such  elo- 
quence under  such  circumstances.  It  was  only  equaled 
by  the  eloquence  of  Joseph's  tears  and  pathetic  reply:  "I 
am  Joseph:  doth  my  father  yet  live?  Come  near  to  me 
I  pray  you.  I  am  Joseph  whom  ye  sold  into  Egypt.  Now 
therefore  be  not  grieved,  nor  angry  with  yourselves  that 
ye  sold  me  thither,  for  God  did  send  me  before  you  to 
preserve  life." 

Joseph's  ardent  affection  for  his  brethren,  so  long  and 
violently  suppressed,  now  like  waters  dammed  up  broke 
over  every  barrier,  deluging  his  noble  face  with  a  flood  of 
tears  and  strong  emotion.  He  first  falls  on  Benjamin's 
neck,  and  then  on  the  necks  of  his  elder  brethren.  The 
contagion  of  tears  and  kisses  became  general,  for  Benja- 
min wept  on  his  neck  and  kissed  his  long-lost  brother, 
and  so  did  the  others.  This  was  a  very  Bochim !  Such 
a  scene  only  occurs  once  in  a  lifetime  or  many  ages. 
There  never  was  a  fitter  occasion  for  tears  and  deep  emo- 
tion than  this;  and  there  never  was  a  more  natural  and 
hearty  manifestation  of  them.  After  this  tender  and  af- 
fecting scene  was  past  they  all  doubtless  felt  better  and 
happier.  This  tempest  of  passion  over,  it  was  a  suitable 
time  for  a  lengthened  conversation.  There  was  abundance 
of  material,  and  we  can  easily  conjecture  some  of  the 
topics  that  would  engage  their  attention. 

Joseph's  magnanimity  and  singular  generosity  are  thus 
brought  to  the  surface  by  the  irresistible  eloquence  of 
Judah,  though  long  repressed.  He  was  not  ashamed  to 
give  vent  to  his  emotions  and  tears  so  that  the  Egyptians 
and  royal  household  witnessed  them.  It  is  not  a  sign 
of  weakness  in  a  great  man  to  weep.  Tears  are  noble 
and  manly  when  there  is  an  occasion  for  them,  as  there 
was  in  this  case. 

Joseph's  greatness  of  soul  is  seen  in  not  permitting  his 
brethren  longer  to  remain  in  suspense,  also  in  exonerating 
them  from  any  blame  in  the  matter  of  his  sale  to  the 
Egyptians.  It  is  difficult  to  tell  which  most  to  admire, 
Joseph's  magnanimity  or  Judah's  honest  simplicity  in  ad- 
mitting Benjamin's  apparent  guilt  and  his  integrity  in 


1 96  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

offering  and  pleading  to  remain  a  bondman  for  his  natu- 
ral life  in  Benjamin's  stead. 

The  report  of  this  touching  and  melting  meeting  of 
Joseph  and  his  brethren  was  noised  abroad  among  the 
royal  family.  It  produced  a  most  profound  sensation  even 
there,  for  Joseph  stood  high  with  Pharaoh  and  his  nobles. 
Moses  tells  us,  "It  pleased  Pharaoh  well  and  his  serv- 
ants." Pharaoh  immediately  told  Joseph  to  "say  to  his 
brethren  this  do  ye:  laden  your  beasts  and  go;  get  you 
unto  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  take  your  father  and  your 
households  and  come  unto  me,  and  I  will  give  you  the  good 
of  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  ye  shall  eat  the  fat  of  the  land. 
Take  you  wagons  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt  for  your  little 
ones  and  for  your  wives,  and  bring  your  father  and 
come." 

Here  is  an  appreciation  of  Joseph's  qualities  and  serv- 
ices and  generosity  worthy  of  a  good  and  great  king.  It 
can  not  be  said  that  all  kings  are  unfeeling.  It  was  noble 
in  Moses,  who  lived  under  another  of  the  name  more 
oppressive  and  cruel,  thus  to  do  honor  to  a  worthy  prede- 
cessor. 

Pharaoh's  kind  offer  is  accepted  by  Joseph  and  his 
family.  Magnificent  presents  are  sent  to  the  Patriarch 
Jacob  with  wagons  sufficient  to  convey  all  his  posterity 
to  Egypt.  The  brethren  return  home  and  open  to  their 
father  the  success  of  their  journey,  bringing  with  them 
both  Simeon  and  Benjamin,  and  what  was  better  still, 
the  unexpected  intelligence  that  his  long-lost  Joseph  is 
alive  and  is  governor  of  Egypt.  The  news  was  too  much 
for  the  aged  sire,  and  he  fainted  and  swooned  away.  On 
his  recovery  they  rehearsed  to  him  all  the  circumstances 
of  Joseph's  revealing  himself,  and  then  showed  him  the 
presents  and  wagons  Joseph  had  sent  to  convey  him  and 
all  his  to  Egypt.  "And  Jacob  said:  It  is  enough:  Joseph 
my  son  is  yet  alive.    I  will  go  and  see  him  before  I  die." 

There  seems  to  be  no  delay  for  their  removal  to  Egypt. 
Jacob  and  all  his  living  posterity  except  Joseph,  amounting 
to  seventy  souls,  are  on  their  way  to  see  Joseph  and  make 
Egypt  their  home.    On  nearing  their  destination,  the  elo- 


JOSEPH  IN  BGYPT.  197 

quent  Judah,  who  lately  overpowered  Joseph  with  his  ten- 
der words,  is  sent  forward  by  Jacob  as  a  herald  to  an- 
nounce to  Joseph  the  approach  of  his  father  and  family. 
Joseph  made  ready  his  chariot  and  went  to  meet  his 
father  in  Goshen.  He  presented  himself  to  the  venerable 
patriarch,  and  fell  on  his  neck  and  wept  a  great  while. 
Here  is  an  affectionate  son  who  was  not  spoiled  by  pros- 
perity and  great  promotion.  Though  himself  a  governor, 
he  remembers  the  deference  and  respect  due  to  old  age. 

The  effect  of  this  meeting  on  the  father  may  be  gath- 
ered from  the  following:  "Now  let  me  die  since  I  have 
seen  thy  face,  because  thou  art  yet  alive."  Here  is  the 
highest  exhibition  of  parental  love.  Gratitude  to  God  and 
surprise  at  seeing  his  long-lost  son  make  the  old  man 
willing  to  die.  This  was  not  a  sinful  wish,  but  the  simple 
impulse  of  gratitude  called  forth  by  an  unexpected  event. 

The  last  recorded  act  of  Joseph's  eventful  and  useful 
life  is  one  of  filial  affection :  the  fulfillment  of  a  promise 
made  his  father  to  bury  him  in  Canaan.  How  naturally 
striking  the  desire  of  Jacob  "old  and  dim"  to  be  buried 
with  his  fathers,  and  how  ready  and  faithful  his  royal  son 
was  to  recognize  and  acquiesce  in  his  dying  request ! 
Strange  event  that  Joseph  should  be  permitted  to  be  at  the 
death  scene  of  his  father.  Singular  Providence  truly  that 
led  Jacob  down  to  Egypt  to  die  in  the  presence  of  his 
royal  son !  Never  were  sincerer  affection  and  grief  lav- 
ished on  a  fond  parent  by  a  dutiful  and  affectionate  son 
than  in  this  instance !  Death  having  done  its  work  Joseph 
ordered  his  Egyptian  physicians  to  embalm  his  father. 
After  forty  days  had  expired  for  perfecting  the  embalm- 
ing, he  was  deposited  in  the  royal  catacombs  or  pyramids 
for  seventy  days  more,  the  usual  time  the  Egyptians 
mourned  their  dead.  This  with  Joseph  was  more  an  act 
of  filial  respect  than  from  any  heathen  superstition.  The 
days  of  mourning  being  ended,  Joseph  prepares  further  to 
carry  out  the  paternal  wish.  He  notifies  Pharaoh  of  his 
father's  request,  and  Pharaoh  said,  "Go  up  and  bury  thy 
father." 

The  funeral  cortege  on  this  occasion  was  imposing! 


198  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

It  consisted  of  Joseph,  his  eleven  brethren,  and  all  the 
adult  members  of  Jacob's  large  posterity,  who  were  the 
chief  mourners:  then  the  princes  and  nobles  of  the  royal 
family  and  Pharaoh's  servants  with  splendid  chariots  and 
horses,  "a  very  great  company  !"  This  costly  and  splendid 
funeral  hints  to  us  in  how  great  esteem  Joseph  was  held. 
Day  after  day  and  week  after  week  this  vast  procession 
with  reverent  tread  moved  along  toward  Canaan.  Jacob's 
countrymen  show  their  high  respect  for  the  deceased  pa- 
triarch by  detaining  the  funeral  train  at  the  threshing  floor 
of  Atad,  and  there  mourned  for  him  seven  days,  "with  a 
great  and  very  sore  lamentation."  Having  reached  the 
old  family  burying-ground  in  the  field  of  Machpelah  in 
Mamre,  "which  Abraham  bought  for  a  possession  of  a 
burying-place."  Here  with  suitable  ceremony  they  de- 
posited the  precious  remains  of  the  illustrious  patriarch 
alongside  Leah  his  wife  and  the  other  ancestral  and  emi- 
nent dead,  Abraham,  Sarah,  Isaac,  and  Rebecca. 

Having  discharged  this  last  painful  duty  to  a  loving 
father,  he  returns  to  Egypt  and  resumes  his  important 
duties  and  responsibilities.  Fealty  to  duty  is  his  watch- 
word. No  attractions  of  home  could  detain  him  or  cause 
him  to  be  false  to  his  engagements. 

Strange  to  say  that  after  his  return,  his  brethren  who 
yet  remain  in  Egypt  are  apprehensive  that  Joseph,  now 
that  his  father  is  dead,  might  decide  on  punishing  them  in 
some  way  for  their  unfraternal  conduct  to  him  when  a 
child.  A  guilty  conscience  needs  no  accuser,  it  is  said. 
They  knew  that  they  richly  deserved  it.  But  generous 
brother  that  he  was,  he  allays  their  fears  in  the  following 
words:  "Fear  not,  for  am  I  in  the  place  of  God?  But  as 
for  you,  ye  thought  evil  against  me,  but  God  meant  it 
for  good,  to  bring  to  pass  as  it  is  this  day,  to  save  much 
people  alive.  Therefore  fear  not;  I  will  nourish  you  and 
your  little  ones."  And  he  comforted  them,  and  spake 
kindly  unto  them.  "Great  and  magnanimous  man  thus  to 
requite  evil  with  good !  thus  to  love  his  enemies,  heaping 
coals  of  fire  on  their  heads?  This  is  the  highest  and 
surest  test  of  a  true  and  really  great  man,  and  no  mere 


JOSEPH  IN  EGYPT.  199 

man  ever  gave  the  world  a  nobler  exhibition  of  true  great- 
ness than  did  Joseph. 

The  rest  of  his  life  was  spent  in  Egypt,  having  seen 
three  generations  of  his  own  children.  He  lived  to  the 
green  and  happy  old  age  of  one  hundred  and  ten  years. 
Eighty  years  of  his  vigorous  and  intellectual  manhood 
were  spent  in  public  life  in  a  most  trying  and  onerous 
position.  It  has  been  said  well  and  truthfully  that  "man 
is  the  architect  of  his  own  character."  This  fact  was  pre- 
eminently exemplified  in  Joseph.  He  was  the  builder  of 
his  own  character,  and  that  character  has  bequeathed 
him  an  immortality  of  fame  more  enduring  than  brass  or 
the  pyramids  of  the  historic  country  he  ruled  so  wisely 
and  well.  Were  I  asked  to  sum  up  the  salient  points  of 
that  magnificent  life,  I  would  say  they  are  the  following: 
first  and  most  prominent  was  his  piety,  the  foundation  of 
his  colossal  character;  and  his  fidelity  to  principle  under 
the  molding  influence  of  that  piety  was  "the  Corinthian 
column"  in  his  character;  unswerving  and  persistent  in- 
tegrity to  duty  the  keystone  in  the  arch  of  its  vast  dome, 
and  these  were  so  consummately  blended  and  graded  as 
to  give  harmony,  porportion,  and  symmetry  to  the  stately 
edifice.  His  affections,  filial  and  fraternal,  his  generosity 
and  courtesy,  with  his  intellectual  culture,  form  the  mo- 
saics, paintings,  and  statuary  of  his  temple  character. 
These  together  in  their  order  and  structure  afford  a  char- 
acter the  most  finely  poised  and  balanced  that  has  appeared 
in  the  records  of  human  history.  There  it  stands  a  model 
for  all  ages,  magnificent  in  its  simple  Hebrew  grandeur ! 

Young  gentlemen,  you  are  living  in  an  age  of  wide- 
spread corruption  in  private  life  and  in  public  life.  The 
public  conscience  is  in  a  sad  state  of  decline.  There  is 
fraud  and  peculation.  Honesty  has  been  at  a  discount. 
A  premium  has  been  offered  to  vice  and  theft.  Profanity, 
intemperance,  and  Sabbath  desecration  are  shockingly 
common!  The  judicial  bench  has  been  mercenary  with 
but  rare  exceptions;  the  bar  is  mercenary.  It  has  little 
or  no  conscience.  One  would  be  led  to  think  that  the 
chief  business  of  the  bar  was  to  defeat  the   ends  of 


200  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE, 

justice.  Politics  are  in  a  fearfully  corrupt  state,  they 
are  absolutely  venal.  Public  sentiment  in  the  political 
world  has  been  so  morbid  that  a  good  and  pure  man 
has  been  thought  unfit  for  civil  office,  lest  he  might 
become  corrupted  by  promotion.  We  may  without  a 
figure  of  speech  pronounce  them  rotten.  The  gigan- 
tic frauds  and  thefts  perpetrated  by  men  of  reputed 
integrity  in  the  name  of  law,  as  in  the  "Credit  Mobilier 
Stocks,"  "Back-pay,"  etc.,  will  be  sufficient  to  remind 
you  of  our  strong  affirmation.  But  this  corruption  is 
not  confined  to  public  life;  it  is  notorious  also  in  private 
and  social  life.  Infidelity  in  the  marriage  relation — God's 
appointed  means  to  save  and  perpetuate  the  race — the 
most  sacred  of  all  earthly  relations,  with  many  it  has  been 
lowered  for  the  most  trivial  causes  till  it  has  almost  be- 
come a  farce.  Foeticide  and  infanticide  have  become 
shockingly  common  in  high  life  and  low  life.  These  and 
other  evils  are  so  fearfully  prevalent  that  a  revulsion  of 
feeling  may  be  hoped  to  arise  against  them  from  the  conse- 
quences these  very  excesses  are  entailing  upon  us.  Reform 
ought  to  be,  and  we  hope  is  becoming,  the  watchword. 
A  revolution  is  sure  to  come  in  time,  even  if  it  be  at  the 
cost  of  a  terrible  uprising  that  will  shake  our  country  and 
society  from  center  to  circumference !  We  need  a  gener- 
ation of  good  and  wise  men,  of  pure  and  elevated  women; 
men  of  sterling  principle;  yes,  men  who  love  and  fear 
God.  Remember  who  has  said,  "When  the  righteous  are 
authority  the  people  rejoice;  but  when  the  wicked  bear 
rule  the  people  mourn." 

One  of  the  most  serious  hindrances  to  such  a  life 
among  the  young  of  this  land  is,  that  so  few  young  men 
are  religious.  The  young  man  says  I  will  have  no  com- 
pany of  my  own  age.  I  shall  appear  singular;  I  shall 
be  the  subject  of  remark  and  ridicule  among  my  compan- 
ions. This  may  be  true;  but  think  of  Joseph!  He  was 
utterly  alone;  neither  those  of  his  own  or  any  age  to  sym- 
pathize with  him.  It  mattered  not  with  him,  though  all 
the  world  were  against  him.  No  one  could  be  religious 
and  good  for  him.    If  there  be  none  to  go  with  you,  the 


THE  SUPREME  DEITY  OF  CHRIST.        201 

more  need  that  you  be  that  single  one  and  give  the  world 
a  living  illustration  of  a  true  and  good  man.  Your  ex- 
ample may  save  others.  Aim  then  at  the  highest  intel- 
lectual excellence,  but  fear  and  love  God  all  the  time. 
Never  descend  to  a  mean  or  base  act,  for  you  are  not 
your  own;  you  belong  to  God,  to  your  country,  and  to 
humanity.  In  conclusion,  we  invite  you  to  study  Joseph's 
character  carefully,  imitate  it  scrupulously,  and  live  it 
grandly. 


THE  SUPREME  DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 

An  Essay  read  before  the  Spokane  Falls  District  Ministerial  Association 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  at  Oakesdale,  W.  T.,  July  14, 1S87. 

[The  above  theme  was  assigned  me  by  the  Ministerial  Association  of 
Spokane  District.  My  brethren  thought  the  essay  of  sufficient  merit  to 
pay  for  its  publication.  I  therefore  consented  to  allow  them  to  make  this 
use  of  it.  My  prayer  is  that  God's  blessing  may  go  with  it  on  its  hum- 
ble mission.! 

"Whom  do  men  say  that  I,  the  Son  of  man,  am?" 
I  am  well  aware  that  it  will  not  be  possible  for  me  to 
give  an  exhaustive  treatment  of  this  theme  in  so  brief  an 
essay.  I  will  therefore  confine  myself  largely  to  an  ex- 
amination of  the  attitude  of  Unitarianism  to  this  doc- 
trine. I  address  myself  then  to  the  task  of  showing  that 
modern  Unitarianism  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  New 
Testament  Christianity,  and  the  demands  of  sinful  human 
nature.  It  might  do  tolerably  well  as  a  religion  for  an 
unfallen  race,  but  has  little  or  no  place  in  a  world  like 
ours.  But  I  must  not  misstate  the  views  of  the  Unitarian 
Church  on  the  question  of  Christ's  place  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament religion.  They  hold,  against  the  Evangelical 
view,  that  Christ  is  only  a  great  prophet  and  religious 
teacher,  higher  than  Moses  or  any  of  the  prophets  of 
Old  Testament  times,  but  only  human  so  far  as  His  birth 
and  mission  into  our  world  are  concerned.  They  deny 
the  vicarious  death  and  atonement  of  Christ,  but  hold 
that  His  death  and  life  were  only  exemplary.  They 
treat  the  cognate  doctrine  of  depravity  as  a  simple  mis- 
fortune to  be  rectified  by  good  example,  and  needing  no 


202  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

vicarious  offering  for  its  cure  and  removal.  So,  of  course, 
the  doctrine  of  spiritual  regeneration  or  the  New  Birth 
is  frittered  away  and  becomes  a  nullity  or  a  mere  fancy. 
In  order  to  maintain  these  dogmas  of  Unitarianism — for 
they  are  extremely  dogmatic  and  zealous  in  their  propa- 
gation— they  are  flooding  the  country  with  their  tracts 
and  sermons  with  a  zeal  equal  to  modern  Adventism. 
And  to  maintain  their  doctrines  they  are  driven  to  the 
most  unreasonable  and  inconsistent  methods  of  inter- 
pretation of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  that  eliminate 
all  the  supernatural  from  the  Christian  system,  and  leaves 
it  a  cold  and  tame  philosophy  that  makes  no  powerful 
appeal  to  weak  and  fallen  humanity. 

I  can  not  but  feel  that  Unitarianism  as  now  taught 
and  propagated  is  an  unwarranted  attack  and  wrong  to 
New  Testament  teaching,  and  a  gross  but  polished  insult 
to  the  claims  of  Christ  and  the  apostles  of  the  early 
Church.  I  propose  to  show  that  modern  Unitarianism 
and  the  great  body  of  the  Jewish  Church  of  Christ's  time 
hold  precisely  the  same  views  of  Christ's  divinity  and 
mission.  The  Jews  of  that  age  insisted  and  persisted 
that  Christ  was  only  a  prophet  and  temporal  prince — a 
great  moral  teacher.  They  so  interpreted  their  own 
Scriptures  and  insisted  in  assigning  this  low  place  for 
their  Messiah,  and  when  He  made  His  advent  they  re- 
fused to  accept  Him  because  His  high  claims  to  divinity 
spoiled  all  their  fancied  and  false  interpretations.  Call 
to  mind  how  they  became  enraged  at  His  superior  claims 
— calling  Him  a  blasphemer  because  in  claiming  to  be 
the  Son  of  God  He  made  Himself  equal  to  the  Father. 
They  charged  Him  with  being  in  league  with  the  devil, 
because  He  worked  miracles  in  attestation  of  His  claims 
to  supreme  Divinity  and  His  mission  to  forgive  sins. 
They  opposed  these  pretensions  by  putting  this  question 
to  Him,  "Who  can  forgive  sins  but  God  only?"  We 
challenge  the  world  to  show  that  the  Jews  of  Christ's 
day  were  not  Unitarians,  and  that  Christ  asserted  His 
high  claims  to  Deity  in  opposition  to  their  charges  of 
blasphemy  and  His  being  in  league  with  the  devil.    Even 


THE  SUPREME  DEITY  OF  CHRIST.       203 

His  immediate  disciples  were  reluctant  to  accept  this 
view.  The  Savior  found  it  exceedingly  difficult  to  dis- 
abuse their  minds  of  the  mistaken  interpretations  of  their 
own  Scriptures  regarding  Himself  and  His  work.  Now 
the  dilemma  those  put  themselves  in  who  take  ground 
with  the  early  Jews  is  seen  in  this :  Christ  had  the  finest 
opportunity  in  the  world  to  have  sided  with  the  Jewish 
Unitarians  that  can  be  conceived.  But  Christ  did  just 
the  opposite  of  all  this.  He  quoted  their  own  Scriptures 
to  prove  His  high  pretensions,  and  held  them  to  His 
dying  hour.  Now  Christ  was  either  what  He  claimed  to 
be,  or  an  impostor  of  the  worst  type.  It  will  not  do  to 
say  that  the  Jews  misunderstood  His  claims.  He  never 
charged  them  with  misunderstanding  His  claims  to  Di- 
vinity. He  knew  that  they  exactly  understood  His  pre- 
tensions when  they  charged  Him  with  being  in  league 
with  the  devil.  They  did  not  misunderstand  Him  when 
He  claimed  equality  with  the  Father,  and  they  replied, 
"Who  can  forgive  sins  but  God  only?"  They  charged 
Him  with  blasphemy  because  He  said,  "I  am  the  Son  of 
God."  If  He  only  claimed  to  be  the  son  of  God  in  the 
same  sense  that  Moses,  Elijah,  or  Isaiah  claimed  it,  then 
the  Jews  had  no  grounds  for  charging  Him  with  blas- 
phemy. I  repeat  it  then,  that  Jesus  allowed  these  de- 
luded Jews  to  rest  under  the  impression  that  He  claimed 
Divine  Sonship  and  supreme  Divinity  without  even  an 
attempt  to  correct  their  misconception,  if  misconception 
it  was.  This  is  the  most  serious  imputation  on  the  sin- 
cerity and  moral  character  of  Christ  that  can  be  con- 
ceived, and  the  people  called  Unitarians  are  responsible 
for  putting  Christ  in  this  very  awkward  position  before 
the  world.  There  seems  to  us  no  way  of  escape  from 
charging  Christ  with  gross  insincerity  and  imposture,  or 
else  admit  His  high  claim  to  Divinity.  Trinitarians  with 
great  unanimity  prefer  the  latter  view.  They  prefer 
most  decidedly  to  stand  with  the  plain  New  Testament 
account  and  be  classed  with  the  so-called  Dark  Ages,  than 
to  be  numbered  with  those  who  charge  Christ  by  violent 
implication   with   deception   and   imposture.     That   there 


204  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

is  no  alternative  but  this  we  are  well  convinced.  That 
the  Jews  and  the  Unitarians  occupy  common  ground  on 
the  Divinity  of  Christ  there  can  be  no  question.  That  I 
am  not  alone  in  this  view,  I  have  just  been  reading  a 
Unitarian  tract  that  claims  Moses,  Abraham,  and  others 
as  Unitarians.  The  early  apostles — especially  John  and 
Paul,  who  were  Jewish  converts  and  understood  the  Jew- 
ish faith  much  better  than  we — are  explicit  in  their 
teachings  in  regard  to  the  proper  Divinity  of  Christ,  and 
were  set  for  the  defense  of  this  cardinal  doctrine  of  the 
New  Testament.  John  especially  was  eminently  quali- 
fied by  nature  and  grace  and  intimacy  with  Christ  to 
write  on  this  theme.  His  Gospel  is  especially  devoted 
to  the  proof  and  defense  of  Christ's  Divine  Sonship  and 
equality  with  the  Father.  Does  it  seem  strange  that 
modern  Unitarianism  should  have  exhibited  such  singu- 
lar zeal  and  questionable  ingenuity  to  cast  doubt  on  the 
genuineness  of  the  Gospel  of  St  John?  This  is  the  last 
and  only  hope  of  weakening  the  Scripture  teaching  on 
this  point.  They  well  know  if  St.  John's  Gospel  is  genu- 
ine that  their  attempt  will  be  vain  to  rob  the  Christian 
world  of  their  faith.  But  the  quickened  researches, 
caused  by  this  suspicion  of  Infidelity  and  Unitarianism, 
has  only  corroborated  the  genuineness  and  authenticity 
of  this  Gospel  more  and  more.  To  show  what  straits 
they  are  driven  to  in  their  interpretations,  I  would  call 
your  attention  to  the  fact  that  I  have  in  my  possession  a 
tract  published  by  the  Unitarian  Publishing  Society  that 
undertakes  the  amusing  task  of  proving  that  the  Apostle 
Paul  was  a  Unitarian.  This  is  a  hint  to  reflecting  people 
of  the  hopelessness  of  their  cause  and  their  methods  to 
desseminate  their  views.  It  were  a  much  easier  task  to 
prove  that  Caleb  Stetson,  the  author  of  the  above  tract, 
is  a  Trinitarian.  Hear  Paul  the  Unitarian  (  ?)  :  "Where- 
fore God  hath  highly  exalted  Him,  and  given  Him  a 
name  above  every  name,  that  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every 
knee  should  bow,  of  things  in  heaven  and  things  in 
earth,  and  things  under  the  earth;  and  that  every  tongue 
should  confess  that  Jesus  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God  the 


THE  SUPREME  DEITY  OF  CHRIST.       205 

Father."  Here  Paul  ascribes  the  term  Lord  or  Jehovah 
to  Him,  and  divine  honors  and  worship  when  all  knees 
in  heaven  and  earth  are  to  bow  to  Him.  Paul  the  Uni- 
tarian (  ?)  says  (Col.  i,  16)  :  "By  Him  all  things  were 
created  that  are  in  heaven  and  that  are  in  the  earth." 

The  benedictions  used  by  Paul  in  all  his  epistles 
show  how  much  of  a  Unitarian  he  was.  For  example: 
"The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  love  of 
God,  and  the  communion  of  the  Holy  Ghost  be  with 
you  all."  "Grace  be  to  you  and  peace  from  God  our 
Father  and  from  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  In  all  these 
benedictions  Christ  is  always  connected  with  the  Father 
or  Holy  Ghost  or  alone,  which  is  a  remarkable  fact  if 
Paul  was  a  Unitarian.  If  he  was  a  Unitarian  and  made 
this  constant  use  of  the  name  of  Christ  in  the  benedic- 
tion, why  do  Unitarians  so  uniformly  abstain  from  using 
the  name  of  Christ  in  the  benediction  and  saying  grace 
at  the  table?  It  might  be  well  for  them  to  rise  and  ex- 
plain why  this  uniform  omission.  Are  they  opposed  to 
paying  such  honor  to  Christ?  Was  it  idolatry  in  Paul 
to  do  so?  The  other  apostles  are  in  accord  with  Paul 
the  Unitarian  (?)  in  this  practice. 

Unitarians  have  little  sympathy  or  confidence  in  the 
Gospel  of  St.  John.  Let  us  quote  a  few  passages,  and  it 
will  appear  why  they  have  a  decided  preference  for  St. 
Matthew  and  Mark.  John  says:  "In  the  beginning 
was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the 
Word  was  God.  All  things  were  made  by  Him,  and 
without  Him  was  not  anything  made  that  was  made." 
If  we  call  to  mind  that  the  great  body  of  the  Jews  were 
Monotheists  or  Unitarians,  and  assailed  Christ's  proper 
Divinity,  you  will  see  why  John  should  thus  explicitly 
declare  His  pre-existence  and  His  creatorship  of  the 
worlds,  and  why  our  Unitarian  friends  are  so  anxious 
and  busy  to  cast  discredit  on  the  credibility  and  authen- 
ticity of  John's  Gospel.  Suppose,  however,  that  Christ 
was  only  a  great  prophet  like  Moses;  by  what  law  of  in- 
terpretation could  we  say  of  Moses,  "In  the  beginning 
was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the 


206  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

Word  was  God/'  or  that  "all  things  were  made  by  Him," 
etc.  This  man  John  enjoyed  an  intimacy  with  Christ 
and  an  insight  into  His  character  that  Matthew  and 
Mark  did  not  enjoy.  It  is  not  strange  then  that  John 
should  have  been  chosen  of  all  the  twelve  to  refute  the 
errors  and  false  interpretations  of  the  Jews  of  Christ's 
time.  While  the  Jews  were  ridiculing  the  claims  of 
Christ  to  Divine  Sonship,  and  sought  to  kill  Him  because 
in  claiming  "God  for  His  Father  He  made  Himself 
equal  to  God,"  John  replies  "that  all  men  should  honor 
the  Son  even  as  they  honor  the  Father.  He  that  honor- 
eth  not  the  Son,  honoreth  not  the  Father."  How  does 
this  treatment  of  the  Son  by  the  Jews  differ  from  that  of 
modern  Unitarianism,  which  declares  that  He  is  only  a 
good  man  and  a  great  prophet?  I  am  not  at  all  sur- 
prised that  they  do  not  relish  John's  views  of  Christ's  di- 
vinity and  office.  John's  faithful  testimony  can  never  be 
shaken  unless  his  Gospel  be  shown  to  be  spurious.  There 
is  nothing  in  Matthew  or  Mark  or  Luke  that  contradicts 
these  strong  declarations  of  John,  but  many  things  that 
corroborate  and  strengthen  them. 

Our  Unitarian  friends  very  well  know  that  the  New 
Testament  is  strongly  and  apparently  against  them,  and 
they  are  driven  to  a  specious  and  forced  interpretation  to 
break  the  force  of  these  Scriptures.  Their  main  depend- 
ence, however,  is  what  they  are  pleased  to  call  the  rational 
argument.  They  insist  that  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  mirac- 
ulous birth  is  not  reasonable.  They  undertake  to  refute 
it  by  a  course  of  reasoning.  We  think  there  are  some 
facts  and  truths  that  can  neither  be  proved  nor  refuted  by 
reason.  They  are  above  reason.  They  are  largely  in 
the  realm  of  faith.  Such  are  the  eternity  and  existence 
of  God  and  the  superhuman  life  and  character  of  Christ. 
He  is  sui  generis.  He  is  absolutely  unique.  He  is  "the 
Alpha  and  Omega."  Paul,  who  had  some  reputation  for 
reasoning  power,  said  of  His  Divinity:  "Great  is  the 
mystery  of  Godliness,"  etc. 

Our  Unitarian  friends  charge  us  with  undervaluing 
the  place  of  reason  in  religion.    In  this  we  think  they  do 


THE  SUPREME  DEITY  OF  CHRIST.       207 

not  fairly  represent  us.  We  believe  that  reason  has  its 
legitimate  sphere  in  determining  most  religious  truths;  but 
we  are  quite  certain  that  reason  has  its  limitations,  and 
that  they  are  quite  as  liable  to  overestimate  it  as  we  are 
to  underestimate  its  place  in  these  profound  theological 
truths. 

Let  me  give  you  an  illustration  of  what  I  mean  by  the 
legitimate  sphere  of  reason.  The  Unitarians  and  Trini- 
tarians alike  take  the  Bible  as  the  text-book  of  their  faith 
and  religion.  The  Trinitarians  claim  that  per  force  of 
the  rational  argument,  that  these  Scriptures  contain  the 
will  and  mind  of  God  to  the  world,  that  there  is  a  har- 
mony and  consistency  in  the  Orthodox  belief  that  is  not  to 
be  found  in  the  Unitarian  view.  The  Bible  seems  clearly 
to  teach  the  doctrine  of  the  fall  of  man  and  the  need 
of  a  Savior  and  regeneration.  All  the  Jewish  rites,  cere- 
monies, and  sacrifices  much  more  nearly  comport  with  the 
idea  that  Christ's  death  was  sacrificial  and  vicarious,  than 
that  it  was  simply  exemplary.  There  is  much  that  is  ut- 
terly unmeaning  in  the  Old  and  New  Testament  with  this 
latter  view.  These  Trinitarian  doctrines  bear  a  striking 
relation  to  each  other,  forming  a  complete  and  consistent 
system,  while  the  opposite  view  utterly  fails  to  account  for 
all  these  explicit  declarations  and  rites,  if  Christ  was  only 
a  prophet  and  a  good  man.  What  need  of  keeping  Christ 
before  the  world  in  prophecy  for  four  thousand  years  if 
He  was  only  a  man?  If  His  death  was  in  no  sense  vica- 
rious, what  sense  or  propriety  in  the  statement  of  Isaiah 
that  "He  was  wounded  for  our  transgressions,  He  was 
bruised  for  our  iniquities;  the  chastisement  of  our  peace 
was  upon  Him  and  with  His  stripes  we  are  healed.  .  .  . 
The  Lord  hath  laid  on  Him  the  iniquity  of  us  all?"  Are 
we  to  lay  aside  our  reason  here,  and  say  this  is  all  a  fig- 
ment, or  that  the  prophet  did  not  mean  what  he  so  seems 
to  mean;  that  God  employs  terms  just  the  opposite  of  the 
idea  that  He  intended?  Use  this  kind  of  interpretation 
on  any  book  of  science  or  philosophy,  and  you  will  ruin 
any  author's  reputation  for  common  sense  and  intelli- 
gence.    But  men  take  large  liberties  with  the  Bible  in 


208  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

the  matter  of  interpretation,  that  would  not  be  tolerated 
with  any  other  book.  Some  one  has  said  that  men  are 
prone  to  search  the  Scriptures  for  what  they  like,  much 
more  than  what  they  need. 

Unitarians  make  great  account  of  the  fact  that  they 
preach  a  "liberal  Christianity."  This  may  or  may  not 
be  a  credit  to  them.  It  depends  altogether  on  what  they 
mean  by  a  liberal  Christianity.  If  it  means  that  they 
give  their  people  a  larger  license  of  belief  and  practice 
than  Christ  and  the  apostles  did,  it  is  extremely  doubt- 
ful whether  such  liberality  may  not  be  a  grave  blunder. 
If  by  liberal  "Christianity  they  mean  charity  or  love 
towards  those  who  differ  from  them,  it  may  be  an  excel- 
lent thing.  So  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  read  their 
writings,  I  think  they  allow  a  large  latitude  in  the  matter 
of  belief.  I  think  Mr.  Ingersoll  would  not  be  denied 
fellowship  in  that  Church  to-day  with  his  published  views 
of  Chris c  and  the  Bible.  I  think  he  is  not  much  more 
scurrilous  and  blasphemous  than  Theodore  Parker  was. 
I  think  I  also  get  the  impression  from  a  pretty  extensive 
perusal  of  their  theological  writings  that  they  boast  that 
their  views  of  the  Christian  religion  are  best  adapted  to 
convert  the  world  to  Christ.  They  are  so  broad  and  tol- 
erant that  all  may  come  under  their  creed  and  be  saved. 
We  will  see  farther  on  what  there  is  in  the  claim. 

One  of  the  doctrines  of  Trinitarianism  is  much  ridi- 
culed by  our  Unitarian  friends;  namely,  the  doctrine  of 
vicarious  sacrifice  or  substitution.  Trinitarians  believe 
that  the  whole  Jewish  ritual  as  to  its  sacrifices  prefigured 
the  death  of  Christ.  They  certainly  are  a  meaningless 
ceremony  and  a  most  cruel  expenditure  of  life  and  inno- 
cent blood,  if  they  do  not  refer  to  Christ's  sacrifice  for 
sin.  Unitarians  have  on  their  hands  the  task  of  reconcil- 
ing all  this  with  Divine  goodness  and  wisdom,  or  of  re- 
jecting the  whole  Mosaic  economy  as  a  false  and  cruel  re- 
ligion. Take  Isaiah's  prophecy  of  the  coming  Messiah, 
and  note  its  vicarious  character:  "He  was  wounded  for 
our  transgressions,  He  was  bruised  for  our  iniquities ;  the 
chastisement  of  our  peace  was  upon  Him  and  with  His 


THB  SUPRBMB  DEITY  OF  CHRIST.       209 

stripes  we  are  healed."  (Isa.  lviii,  5.)  It  is  the  supremest 
folly  to  undertake  to  break  the  force  of  this  single  Scrip- 
ture for  vicarious  atonement,  unless  it  can  be  shown  that 
some  one  else  is  meant  than  Christ.  If  the  Christ  of  the 
New  Testament  is  the  Messiah  of  Isaiah,  then  vicarious 
suffering  is  predicated  of  Jesus.  But  Christ,  after  His 
resurrection,  said  to  His  discouraged  and  doubting  dis- 
ciples :  "These  are  the  words  which  I  spake  unto  you  while 
I  was  yet  with  you,  that  all  things  must  be  fulfilled  which 
were  written  in  the  law  of  Moses  and  in  the  prophets 
concerning  Me.  Then  opened  He  their  understanding, 
that  they  might  understand  the  Scriptures;  and  said  unto 
them,  Thus  it  is  written  and  thus  it  behooved  Christ  to 
suffer  and  rise  from  the  dead  the  third  day,  and  that 
repentance  and  remission  of  sins  should  be  preached  in 
His  name  among  all  nations."  (Isa.  xxiv,  44-47.)  "Ought 
not  Christ  to  have  suffered  these  things  and  to  enter  into 
His  glory?  And  beginning  at  Moses  and  all  the  proph- 
ets, He  expounded  unto  them  in  all  the  Scriptures  the 
things  concerning  Himself."  (Ibid,  xxiv,  26,  27.)  By  all 
fair  rules  of  interpretation  these  Scriptures  refer  to 
Christ,  and  no  torturing  or  refinement  can  rob  them  of 
the  commonly  received  meaning.  The  only  thing  for 
liberal  Christianity  is  to  lessen  the  force  of  these  explicit 
statements  of  Isaiah  and  Christ  by  attacking  their  reason- 
ableness. Well,  this  amounts  to  saying  that  Isaiah  and 
Christ  employed  terms  that  were  misleading  to  the  people 
to  whom  they  wrote  and  spoke;  or  else  they  were  not 
capable  of  conveying  their  ideas  in  suitable  language;  or 
else  they  deliberately  taught  dangerous  error.  Mr.  Chan- 
ning  challenges  the  Trinitarian  body  to  point  out  "some 
plain  passages  where  substitutional  suffering  is  taught." 
We  answer  confidently  that  the  above  quoted  passages 
teach  substitutional  suffering,  or  nothing  could  teach  it. 
We  are  told  that  substitutional  suffering  is  a  reflection 
on  the  Divine  goodness  and  justice.  A  sufficient  reply 
to  this  is,  that  voluntary  suffering  for  the  sake  of  others 
does  not  reflect  on  the  Divine  goodness  or  justice,  and 
such  was  Christ's  sufferings  for  us.    It  pleased  the  Father 


210  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

to  accept  the  free-will  offering  of  His  Son.  We  admire 
the  act  of  an  ancient  king  whose  son  was  to  suffer  the 
penalty  of  having  both  his  eyes  put  out  for  some  crime 
against  his  country,  and  submitted  to  have  one  of  his 
own  eyes  taken  out  to  save  to  his  son  one  eye.  All  bail 
and  suffering  that  men  endure  for  their  fellow-men  is 
vicarious  and  praiseworthy.  The  fallacy  in  this  objec- 
tion is  in  assuming  that  Trinitarians  teach  that  God  pun- 
ished His  Son  for  the  sins  of  the  world  without  His  con- 
sent. The  goodness  of  God  in  consenting,  and  the  benev- 
olence of  Christ  in  voluntarily  offering  Himself  in  our 
stead  are  both  honorable  and  praiseworthy. 

It  is  asserted  with  great  confidence  and  frequency  by 
so-called  liberal  Christianity  that  their  religious  views 
are  best  calculated  to  foster  piety  and  save  men.  They 
rather  pride  themselves  on  their  humanitarian  ideas  as 
best  calculated  to  save  men  from  their  vices.  Well,  this 
is  a  praiseworthy  boast  if  true,  and  ought  to  give  Unita- 
rianism  great  pre-eminence  among  men  if  true.  I  should 
certainly  be  strongly  inclined  to  become  a  Unitarian  if  it 
were  best  adapted  to  save  men  from  sin  and  reform  the 
world.  Let  us  see  how  this  claim  accords  with  facts :  Uni- 
tarianism  is  at  least  two  hundred  and  fifty  years  old;  Dr. 
John  Lock,  Dr.  Samuel  Clark,  and  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  very 
eminent  men,  accepted  it.  To-day  there  is  scarcely  a  sect 
so  small,  numerically,  as  they.  I  think  they  only  number 
17,000  in  the  United  States.  What  are  we  to  say  of  their 
efforts  to  Christianize  the  heathen  world?  Where  are 
their  missions?  Christ  and  His  apostles  were  pre-emi- 
nently missionary.  Christ's  great  commission  runs  thus: 
"Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every 
creature."  Our  Unitarian  friends  seem  to  confine  their 
labors  to  a  few  cultivated  people  in  Christian  lands.  We 
submit  that,  with  their  large  pretensions,  this  showing  is 
not  very  creditable  in  comparison  with  the  growth  of 
Trinitarianism.  This  is  a  fact  deserving  of  a  rational 
explanation. 

I  remember  well,  in  my  Own  day,  that  there  have 
been  three  of  four  eminent  Unitarian  ministers,  as  emi- 


THE  SUPREME  DEITY  OF  CHRIST.        211 

nent  as  any  that  now  represent  that  Church  for  piety  and 
culture,  who  have  left  its  ministry  because  they  have  be- 
come well  convinced  of  the  failure  of  its  teachings  to  re- 
form men.  These  were  Coleridge,  Huntington,  Frothing- 
ham,  and  Hepworth.  As  has  been  said,  it  might  do  for  a 
world  that  had  never  lapsed  into  sin,  but  for  a  race  that 
are  under  the  dominion  of  depravity  it  seems  to  be  wholly 
incapacitated  to  meet  the  case. 

This  leads  me  to  call  attention  to  an  article  recently 
published  by  M.  J.  Savage,  in  a  magazine  called  The 
Forum,  entitled  "My  Religious  Experience."  The  writer 
informs  his  readers  that  he  was  compelled  to  change 
his  views  from  Orthodoxy  to  Unitarianism  because,  in 
his  study  of  Darwinianism,  he  had  come  to  believe  that 
"this  new,  ridiculed,  and  hated  doctrine  was  the  very  truth 
of  God.  I  was  not  long  in  seeing  that  the  fall  and  ascent 
of  man  could  hardly  both  be  true.  I  had  indeed  come 
to  believe  that  a  miraculous  Christ  and  a  supernatural 
redemption  might  still  be  retained,  though  I  had  surren- 
dered all  faith  in  the  supposed  fact  which  constituted  the 
only  reason  for  their  existence.  But  I  soon  became  con- 
vinced that  when  evolution  came  in  at  the  door,  that  the 
whole  Orthodox  plan  of  salvation  must  go  out  at  the  win- 
dow. ...  If,  therefore,  the  new  revelation  of  science 
were  true,  I  felt  sure  that  Evangelical  Christianity  could 
not  be  true.  ...  If,  instead  of  a  perfect  creation 
followed  by  a  catastrophe  which  called  for  a  scheme  of 
redemption  by  way  of  recovery,  there  had  been  a  gradual 
and  orderly  evolution  from  the  first,  under  the  guidance 
of  an  all-wise  Power,  then  there  was  neither  necessity 
nor  place  for  any  of  the  cardinal  points  of  the  old  faith." 

This  is  the  strong  language  of  Mr.  Savage,  who  has 
recently  become  an  oracle  in  the  Unitarian  Church.  It 
is  a  very  remarkable  confession,  as  you  must  see  upon  a 
little  reflection.  He  frankly  confesses  that  he  abandons 
the  Mosaic  account  of  creation  for  Darwinianism.  He  is 
perfectly  satisfied  that  Charles  Darwin  is  correct,  and  of 
consequence  Moses  is  a  fable.  He  is  much  more  posi- 
tive of  this  than  Darwin  ever  dared  to  be.    If  Darwin  is 


212  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

correct,  the  account  of  a  perfect  creation,  followed  by  a 
catastrophe,  is  a  myth,  and  there  is  no  need  of  a  scheme  of 
redemption.  This  is  simply  Mr.  Savage's  reason  for  re- 
jecting "a  miraculous  Christ  and  a  supernatural  redemp- 
tion." They  are  superfluous,  if  the  Darwinian  theory  is 
correct,  as  he  firmly  believes  it  is.  This  certainly  is  a 
novel  reason  for  rejecting  Evangelical  Christianity  and 
embracing  Unitarian  Christianity.  I  could  see  some  rea- 
son for  rejecting  the  whole  Bible  account  and  teachings, 
if  the  Darwinian  theory  were  true,  but  why  any  man 
should  change  his  Orthodoxy  for  Unitarianism  I  can  not 
see,  unless  Unitarianism  and  Infidelity  are  very  friendly 
to  each  other.  If  Mr.  Savage  rejects  the  whole  scheme 
of  moral  redemption  because  Darwinianism  teaches  that 
the  world  is  growing  better,  morally  and  physically,  under 
the  power  of  Evolution,  and  must  have  been  so  doing  for 
long  ages  past,  we  may  ask,  What  must  have  been  the 
physical  and  moral  condition  of  our  world  some  millions 
of  years  ago?  And  if  there  has  never  been  any  catas- 
trophe, physical  or  moral,  as  he  infers  from  the  Evolution 
hypothesis,  will  he  please  inform  us  how  moral  evil,  which 
is  so  widespread  at  present  and  is  giving  philanthropists 
so  much  concern  for  its  curtailment  and  cure,  came  to  be 
here  ?  Most  people  have  a  conviction  that  such  a  trouble- 
some and  unmanageable  evil  must  have  had  a  beginning 
and  some  adequate  cause.  If  "an  orderly  and  gradual 
evolution"  is  going  on,  then  there  is  no  need  of  either 
Evangelical  or  Unitarian  Christianity.  God  has  set  His 
law  in  operation,  and  "the  survival  of  the  fittest"  is  certain 
to  result,  according  to  this  remarkable  theory.  But  it  is 
not  my  purpose  in  this  essay  to  refute  the  imperfect  theory 
of  Mr.  Darwin.  I  simply  call  attention  to  this  singular 
confession  of  Mr.  Savage  in  a  popular  magazine,  to  show 
that  Unitarianism  or  Liberal  Christianity,  so  called,  seems 
ready  and  generally  foremost  to  sympathize  with  nearly 
every  new  phase  of  Scientific  Infidelity  that  arises.  Now, 
according  to  Mr.  Savage  and  other  Unitarians,  we  are 
to  believe  that  Darwinianism  and  learning  are  the  more 
rational  and  effectual  means  of  reforming  the  race.    Mr. 


THE  SUPREME  DEITY  OF  CHRIST.       213 

Channing  would  have  been  as  much  shocked  at  the  the- 
ology of  Mr.  Savage  as  Mr.  Ware  was  at  the  profanity  of 
Ralph  Waldo  Emerson's  great  address  to  the  Divinity 
School  in  1838,  and  as  the  great  body  of  the  Unitarians 
almost  unanimously  revolted  at  the  shocking  blasphemy 
of  Theodore  Parker's  sermon  entitled  "The  Transient  and 
Permanent  in  Christianity"  in  1841.  But  the  Unitarianism 
of  the  year  1887  endorses  these  blasphemous  utterances  of 
Emerson  and  Parker.  They  tell  us  "Unitarianism  grows." 
Yes,  it  grows  toward  infidelity.  Mr.  Emerson  withdrew 
from  the  Unitarian  Church  because  of  the  severe  criti- 
cisms of  his  Church  respecting  his  latitudinarian  views. 
Because  the  best  and  most  conservative  of  his  denomina- 
tion denounced  his  ultra  and  irreverent  statements  about 
Jesus,  he  styled  their  protestations  "puppyism."  That  is, 
they  were  conceding  too  much  to  Orthodoxy.  Now,  Mr. 
Emerson  suppressed  some  of  the  most  irreverent  passages 
of  that  famous  address,  either  from  policy  or  cowardice. 
I  know  it  is  claimed  for  him  in  this  omission,  at  the  time 
of  its  delivery,  that  the  address  was  too  long,  so  he  omitted 
some  of  it.  Why  did  he  not  omit  some  other  part  and 
give  them  what  many  Unitarians  now  boast  was  its 
chief  excellency?  Unitarianism  has  decidedly  departed 
from  the  sentiments  and  piety  of  William  Ellery  Chan- 
ning and  Mr.  W'are,  and  now  consider,  to  use  their  own 
language,  that  Emerson  and  Parker,  who  were  so  irrev- 
erent in  their  attacks  on  Christ,  have  become  to  most 
Unitarians  "prophets."  If  Theodore  Parker  is  an  ac- 
cepted prophet  with  Unitarians,  then  verily  it  does  "grow;" 
but  it  is  a  growth  in  irreverence  and  latitudinarian- 
ism.  Its  recent  representative  body  at  Saratoga,  N.  Y., 
had  the  immodesty  and  bad  taste  to  air  their  semi-infi- 
delity in  a  Methodist  Church  by  flippant  criticism  of 
Trinitarian  Christianity,  giving  a  disgusting  illustration 
of  their  vaunted  Liberal  (?)  Christianity.  I  must  say, 
what  I  regret  to  be  compelled  to  say  of  any  professing 
Christian  body,  that  the  Unitarians  are  the  most  dog- 
matic and  caustic  and  illiberal  of  all  the  Churches  it  has 
been  my  misfortune  to  come  in  contact  with,  with  possi- 


214  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

bly  one  single  exception — the  Campbellites.  I  have  read 
their  tracts  and  sermons  somewhat  extensivly,  and  have 
come  to  believe  that,  while  they  are  cultured  and  very 
polished,  yet  there  is  an  undercurrent  of  innuendo,  and 
sharp  sarcasm,  profusely  garnished  with  a  florid  rhetoric 
to  disguise  the  bitter  animus  that  largely  pervades  their 
tracts  and  sermons.  I  am  happy  to  say  that  there  are  a 
very  few  honorable  exceptions  to  this  rule.  Ridicule  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  of  Depravity,  of  Future  Pun- 
ishment, of  Conversion,  and  the  proper  Divinity  of  Christ, 
forms  the  staple  of  most  of  their  essays  and  discourses. 
They  dilate  largely  on  morality  and  practical  religion, 
and  are  zealously  careful  to  impress  the  reader  and 
hearer  that  they  have  a  monopoly  of  all  the  practical 
Christianity  in  the  world.  They  do  not  the  generous 
thing  of  admitting  that  Trinitarians  insist  on  a  good  life 
and  practical  godly  living  as  much  as  they  do.  We  only 
differ  in  this:  Trinitarians  lay  more  stress  on  Christ's 
Divinity,  the  office  and  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
the  necessity  of  regeneration,  but  not  less  stress  on  prac- 
tical godliness.  They  know,  or  ought  to  know,  that  this 
is  true,  and  they  would  do  much  to  establish  their  claim 
to  Liberal  Christianity  by  less  of  polished  criticism  and 
more  of  the  thirteenth  chapter  of  First  Corinthians. 

I  have  but  one  more  observation  to  offer,  and  then  I 
close  this  essay.  The  forced  and  unnatural  interpreta- 
tions of  the  teachings  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  by 
our  Unitarian  friends  touching  the  Deity  of  Christ  and 
the  cognate  doctrines  of  Depravity,  Regeneration,  and  the 
Atonement,  are  so  strained  and  unnatural  that  they  evi- 
dently betray  the  slender  foundation  of  their  faith.  If 
their  interpretations  are  correct  as  against  the  immense 
body  of  Christians  of  this  and  past  centuries  who  are 
quite  as  honest  and  capable  of  interpreting  these  Scrip- 
tures, then  it  follows  of  necessity  that  either  the  Divine 
Being  made  a  blunder  in  the  use  of  terms  to  convey  im- 
portant doctrines  to  the  world,  or  that  he  intended  to 
shroud  these  vital  truths  in  such'  ambiguous  words  that 
none  but  a  few  Unitarians  of  Christ's  times  and  our  day 


THE  SUPREME  DEITY  OF  CHRIST.       215 

could  possibly  give  their  true  meaning;  and  that  Christ 
the  Great  Teacher  Himself  did  not  understand  their  real 
import.  It  is  difficult  to  escape  this  conclusion  if  we 
admit  the  views  of  Socinians  of  this  day. 

"When  Daniel  Webster  was  in  his  best  moral  state, 
and  when  he  was  in  the  prime  of  his  manhood,  he  was 
one  day  dining  with  a  company  of  literary  gentlemen  in 
Boston.  The  company  was  composed  of  clergymen,  law- 
yers, physicians,  statesmen,  merchants,  and  almost  all 
classes  of  literary  persons.  During  the  dinner  the  con- 
versation incidentally  turned  upon  the  subject  of  Chris- 
tianity. Mr.  Webster,  as  the  occasion  was  in  honor  of 
him,  was  expected  to  take  a  leading  part  in  the  conver- 
sation, and  he  frankly  stated  as  his  religious  sentiments 
his  belief  in  the  Divinity  of  Christ  and  his  dependence 
upon  the  atonement  of  the  Savior.  A  minister  of  con- 
siderable literary  reputation  who  sat  opposite  him  at  the 
table  looked  at  him  and  said:  'Mr.  Webster,  can  you 
comprehend  how  Jesus  Christ  can  be  both  God  and  man  ?' 
Mr.  Webster  promptly  and  emphatically  said,  'No,  sir, 
I  can  not  comprehend  it,  and  I  would  be  ashamed  to 
acknowledge  Him  as  my  Savior  if  I  could  comprehend 
it.  If  I  could  comprehend  Him  He  could  be  no  greater 
than  myself;  and  such  is  my  conviction  of  accountability 
to  God,  such  is  my  sense  of  sinfulness  before  Him,  and 
such  is  the  knowledge  of  my  incapacity  to  recover  myself, 
that  I  feel  I  need  a  superhuman  Savior/ ' 

"Dr.  Priestly,  an  eminent  Unitarian  minister,  once 
said  to  Dr.  Miller,  a  Calvinist:  'I  do  not  wonder  that 
you  Calvinists  entertain  and  express  a  strongly  unfavor- 
able opinion  of  us  Unitarians.  The  truth  is,  there  neither 
can  nor  ought  to  be  any  compromise  between  us.  If 
you  are  right,  we  are  not  Christians  at  aee;  and  if 
we  are  right,  you  are  gross  idolaters/  If  Christ  was 
only  a  man  we  are  idolaters;  if  He  was  more  than  a  man, 
they  are  infidels.  If  Christ  was  only  a  man  or  a  great 
prophet,  then  His  pretensions  and  claims  are  the  most 
preposterous  and  absurd  possible.  His  egotism  and  self- 
assertion  are  the  most  disgusting  and  immodest  of  any- 


216  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

thing  that  has  ever  appeared  in  human  history.  It  argues 
the  greatest  insincerity  or  the  grossest  ignorance  that 
has  ever  been  palmed  off  on  the  world.  This  conclusion 
we  feel  confident  can  not  be  escaped  by  Socinianism  in 
any  of  its  phases — especially  by  modern  Unitarianism. 
The  great  Trinitarian  Church  prefers  infinitely  to  stand 
for  the  supreme  Divinity  of  Christ,  than  to  be  compelled 
to  take  the  consequences  of  a  denial  of  that  Divinity 
with  all  its  absurdities,  inconsistencies,  and  miserable  and 
unjust  concessions  to  Infidelity  and  "science  falsely  so 
called."  Trinitarianism  has  a  grand  history  and  a  hopeful 
future.  On  this  ground  she  proposes  to  stand  till  dis- 
lodged by  a  juster  criticism  and  a  severer  logic  than  her 
antagonists  have  ever  yet  employed. 


THE  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOEE. 

Josh  Billings's  most  recent  and  palpable  hit  is  thus 
put:  "I  would  not  give  five  cents  to  hear  Bob  Ingersoll 
on  the  mistakes  of  Moses;  but  I  would  give  five  hundred 
dollars  to  hear  Moses  on  the  mistakes  of  Bob  Ingersoll." 
This  is  not  only  keenly  witty,  but  is  so  perspicuously 
truthful  and  just  that  if  all  Mr.  Shaw's  other  fine  hits 
were  lost,  this  alone  would  immortalize  him  as  an  acute 
satirist  and  humorist. 

There  is  nothing  more  manifest  in  the  lectures  and 
writings  of  Mr.  Ingersoll  against  Christianity  than  his 
reckless  misstatement  of  facts,  unless  it  be  his  scurrility. 
In  reading  his  articles  in  the  North  American  Review 
a  few  days  since,  I  was  grealty  surprised  to  find  so  many 
unguarded  statements.  A  few  of  these  I  beg  leave  to 
present  in  two  or  three  brief  articles. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  asks :  "Why  did  not  Christ  tell  His  dis- 
ciples, and  through  them  the  world,  that  man  should  not 
persecute  for  opinion'  sake  his  fellow-man?  Why  did 
He  not  cry,  You  shall  not  persecute  in  My  name;  you 
shall  not  burn  and  torment  those  who  differ  from  you 
in  creed?"    This,  strange  to  say,  is  just  what  Christ  did 


THE  MISTAKES  OF  INGBRSOLL.  217 

command  His  disciples  not  to  do.  When  the  Samaritans 
refused  to  entertain  Christ  because  He  was  a  Jew,  James 
and  John  said,  "Lord,  wilt  Thou  that  we  command  fire 
to  come  down  from  heaven  and  consume  them  as  Elias 
did?"  but  He  (Christ)  rebuked  them  and  said:  "Ye  know 
not  what  manner  of  spirit  ye  are  of,  for  the  Son  of  man 
is  not  come  to  destroy  men's  lives,  but  to  save  them." 
(Luke  ix,  51,  55.)  Again:  "If  any  man  hear  My  words 
and  believe  not,  I  judge  him  not,  for  I  come  not  to  judge 
the  world,  but  to  save  the  world."  (John  xii,  47.)  Also 
in  Mark  ix,  38,  40.    Do  n't  fail  to  read  it. 

Again  Mr.  Ingersoll  asks :  "Why  did  not  Christ  plainly 
say,  I  am  the  Son  of  God?"  He  did,  as  plainly  as  lan- 
guage can  convey  it.  In  Matt,  xxvi,  63,  64:  "And  the 
high  priest  answered  and  said  unto  Him,  I  adjure  Thee 
by  the  living  God,  that  Thou  tell  us  whether  Thou  be  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God?  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  Thou 
hast  said."  Then  they  charged  Him  with  "blasphemy," 
because  He  said  He  was  the  Son  of  God.  Again  Matt, 
xxvii,  43 :  "He  trusted  in  God.  Let  Him  deliver  Him  now, 
if  He  will  have  Him;  for  He  said  I  am  the  Son  of  God." 
Again  John  v,  18 :  "Therefore  the  Jews  sought  the  more 
to  kill  Him,  because  He  not  only  broke  the  Sabbath,  but 
said  also  that  God  was  His  Father,  making  Himself  equal 
with  God."  Again  John  x,  36 :  "Say  ye  of  Him  whom  the 
Father  hath  sanctified  and  sent  into  the  world,  Thou 
blasphemeth  because  I  am  the  Son  of  God?"  And  again 
John  v,  23:  Jesus  said,  "He  that  honoreth  not  the  Son, 
honoreth  not  the  Father." 

These  questions  were  doubtless  asked  by  Mr.  Inger- 
soll to  throw  discredit  on  the  teachings  and  character  of 
Christ.  Mr.  I either  knew  the  questions  he  put  con- 
tained a  falsehood,  or  else  he  shows  his  extreme  ignorance 
of  Christ's  teachings.  In  either  case  he  is  highly  culpable 
and  censurable.  How  can  any  man  in  this  age  expect 
to  have  the  confidence  and  respect  of  intelligent  and  honest 
men  who  is  guilty  of  such  misstatements?  such  as  every 
Sunday-school  boy  or  girl  is  perfectly  familiar  with;  or 
who  that  is  so  consummately  ignorant  of  the  religion  he 


218  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

attacks  as  to  make  in  a  grave  quarterly  review  such  ut- 
terly reckless  statements  can  be  relied  on?  It  is  an  open 
insult  to  the  intelligence  and  morals  of  the  age  we  live  in. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  again  in  his  first  article  asks  some  other 
questions  for  a  like  purpose,  some  of  them  calculated  to 
convey  a  wrong  impression  with  the  uninformed,  and 
some  of  them  extremely  silly  and  puerile.  Here  is  a 
sample :  "Why  did  not  Christ  explain  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  ?"  We  answer  for  the  best  of  reasons.  If  He  had, 
Mr.  Ingersoll  has  not  capacity  to  have  understood  it. 
"Why  did  Christ  not  tell  the  manner  of  baptism  that  was 
pleasing  unto  Him?"  Evidently  because  the  manner  or 
mode  was  unimportant.  He  was,  however,  careful  to  tell 
us  the  kind  "of  baptism  that  was  pleasing  unto  Him." 
See  Acts  i,  5 :  "For  John  truly  baptized  with  water,  but 
ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost." 

"Why  did  not  Christ  say  something  positive,  definite, 
and  satisfactory  about  another  world?"  He  did.  In  the 
parable  of  the  rich  man  and  the  beggar  He  was  very  posi- 
tive and  "definite,"  and  to  most  people  "satisfactory."  In 
John's  Gospel  xiv,  1,  2,  he  said  to  His  disciples,  and 
"through  them  to  all  the  world:"  "Let  not  your  heart  be 
troubled:  ye  believe  in  God,  believe  also  in  Me.  In  My 
Father's  house  are  many  mansions;  if  it  were  not  so  I 
would  have  told  you;  for  I  go  to  prepare  a  place  for 
you.  And  if  I  go  and  prepare  a  place  for  you,  I  will  come 
again  and  receive  you  unto  Myself."  And  in  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount,  the  Savior  said:  "Blessed  are  the  poor  in 
spirit,  for  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Blessed  are 
the  pure  in  heart,  for  they  shall  see  God.  Blessed  are  they 
that  are  persecuted  for  righteousness'  sake,  for  theirs  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.  Blessed  are  ye  when  men  shall  revile 
you  and  persecute  you  and  shall  say  all  manner  of  evil 
against  you  falsely  for  My  sake.  Rejoice  and  be  exceed- 
ing glad,  for  great  is  your  reward  in  heaven!"  Now 
what  could  be  more  "positive,  definite,  and  saisfactory" 
than  the  above? 

Again  Mr.  Ingersoll  says :  "He  [Christ]  came  to  make 
a  revelation,  and  what  did  He  reveal  ?    Love  thy  neighbor 


THB  MISTAKES  OF  INGBRSOLL.  219 

as  thyself?  That  was  in  the  Old  Testament.  Love  the 
Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart?  That  was  in  the  Old 
Testament.  Return  good  for  evil?  That  was  said  by 
Buddha  seven  hundred  years  before  He  was  born."  Christ 
said,  "Before  Abraham  was  I  am."  John  said:  "In  the 
beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God, 
and  the  Word  was  God.  The  same  was  in  the  beginning 
with  God.  All  things  were  made  by  Him;  and  without 
Him  was  not  anything  made  that  was  made.  In  Him  was 
life,  and  the  life  was  the  light  of  men."  Christ  was  the 
Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament.  He  did  recognize  the  Old 
Testament  and  improve  it  by  commanding  His  followers 
"to  love  their  enemies."  But  where  did  Buddha  get  "re- 
turn good  for  evil  ?"  Verily  likely  from  Mosaic  tradition. 
He  resembled  Mr.  Ingersoll  very  much  in  one  thing; 
about  all  the  really  good  and  meritorious  things  he  has 
said  and  written  he  got  directly  or  indirectly  from  the 
Bible.  He  shines  by  borrowed  light.  One  thing  Christ 
did  reveal  that  Mr.  Ingersoll  forgot,  or  did  not  care  to 
mention,  is  the  true  cause  of  atheism  and  infidelity,  viz. : 
"This  is  the  condemnation;  that  light  is  come  into  the 
world,  and  men  love  darkness  rather  than  light,  because 
their  deeds  are  evil." 

Mr.  Ingersoll  again  and  again  assumes  and  reiterates 
the  statement,  that  God  gave  nobody  but  the  Jews  and 
early  Christians  a  Bible  or  Revelation.  This,  I  suspect, 
is  another  of  his  hasty  and  extravagant  assumptions.  I 
can  not  believe  that  this  is  the  position  held  by  the  intelli- 
gent Biblical  students  of  this  age.  If  Mr.  Ingersoll  and 
his  admirers  will  read  with  care  and  candor  the  first  chap- 
ter of  Romans,  especially  from  the  eighteenth  verse  to  the 
close,  they  will  make  the  wonderful  discovery  that  all 
heathen  nations  at  some  time  in  their  history  had  a  reve- 
lation equal  to  the  Jews ;  but  from  abuse  and  neglect  have 
lost  it ;  and  whatever  of  truth  is  to  be  found  among  them, 
such  as  the  wise  and  good  precepts  of  Buddha,  Zoroaster, 
Laotsi,  Confucius,  or  Plato,  Socrates,  Seneca,  and  Cicero 
among  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  are  what  is  left  of  that 
Revelation.     Such   expressions   in   this   first   chapter  of 


220  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

Romans  as:  "The  wrath  of  God  is  revealed  from  heaven 
against  all  ungodliness  and  unrighteousness  of  men  who 
hold  the  truth  in  unrighteousness;"  "they  are  without  ex- 
cuse;" "when  they  knew  God  they  worshiped  Him  not  as 
God,  but  became  vain  in  their  imaginations,  and  their  fool- 
ish heart  was  darkened;"  "they  changed  the  glory  of  the 
uncorruptible  [incorruptible]  God  into  an  image  made  like 
to  corruptible  man,"  etc.;  "who  changed  the  truth  of  God 
into  a  lie  and  worshiped  and  served  the  creature  more 
than  the  Creator."  We  are  here  told  God  "revealed  it  to 
them  from  heaven,"  and  that  these  Gentiles  "held  the  truth 
in  unrighteousness;"  that  is,  mixed  it  with  error  and  sin; 
"when  they  knew  God  they  refused  to  worship  Him  as 
God;"  "they  changed  the  glory  of  the  true  God  to  man- 
worship  and  idolatry;"  "they  changed  the  truth  of  God" — 
His  revelation — "into  a  lie,"  or  to  pantheism.  Now  if 
they  thus  changed  "the  glory  and  truth  of  God"  into  lies 
and  idolatry,  they  must  first  have  had  it  revealed  before 
they  could  change  it.  It  may  here  be  observed  that  the 
Gentile  or  heathen  nations  lost  their  Revelation  by  treat- 
ing it  as  Mr.  Ingersoll  and  the  rejectors  of  Christian 
Revelation  are  likely  to  lose  theirs;  by  despising  and 
abusing  it. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  tells  us  he  can  see  no  "plan"  or  "de- 
sign" in  the  universe.  He  claims  that  the  universe  "always 
was,  and  forever  will  be."  It  is  "self-existent."  "The 
mind  of  every  thoughtful  man  is  forced  to  one  of  two 
conclusions:  either  that  the  universe  is  self-existent,  or 
that  it  was  created  by  a  self-existent  Being.  To  my  mind 
there  are  far  more  difficulties  in  the  second  hypothesis 
than  in  the  first."  Of  course  "the  universe  is  self- 
existent,"  or  "it  was  created  by  a  self-existent  Being." 
It  is  very  difficult  to  argue  with  a  "mind"  so  constituted 
that  it  can  see  "no  plan"  or  "design"  in  the  universe;  or 
with  a  mind  that  feels  it  is  more  probable  that  matter  is 
self-existent  than  that  mind  is  self-existent;  that  the  earth 
is  eternal  and  God  is  not.  He  makes  light  of  Paley's 
argument  of  design  from  the  discovery  of  the  watch. 
To  him  it  is  much  more  probable  that  the  watch  was  self- 


THE  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL.  221 

existent  than  that  it  had  a  designer;  or  to  state  it  more 
forcibly,  it  is  a  more  rational  "hypothesis"  to  his  "mind" 
that  the  watch  made  the  man,  than  that  the  man  made 
the  watch.  Now  the  only  forcible  point  I  can  see  in  Mr. 
Ingersoll's  philosophy  or  theory  of  the  universe  is,  that  a 
mind  constituted  as  he  says  his  is,  that  his  mind  appears 
to  have  been  created  without  any  intellectual  or  moral 
"plan"  or  "design."  It  reminds  one  very  forcibly  of  the 
theory,  "whether  Jonah  swallowed  the  whale,  or  the  whale 
swallowed  Jonah."  The  Atheistic  theory  of  the  universe 
is,  that  Jonah  swallowed  the  whale;  and  the  Theistic 
hyopthesis  is,  that  the  whale  swallowed  Jonah.  Some 
minds  are  so  constituted  (and  among  them  notably  Mr. 
Ingersoll's )  that  the  former  hypothesis  is  more  rational 
than  the  latter.  What  is  to  be  done  with  such  mental 
anomalies  ?  We  will  be  compelled  to  consign  them  to  the 
agnostic  limbo  of  'the  unknowable."  The  scientific 
method  is  wholly  at  a  loss  to  account  for  it. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  in  his  skip  and  hop  method  of  writing 
against  the  Bible  has  some  fault  to  find  with  the  Deca- 
logue. He  says :  "Of  course  it  is  admitted  that  most  of 
the  Ten  Commandments  are  wise  and  just.  In  passing 
it  may  be  well  enough  to  say  that  the  (first)  command- 
ment .  .  .  was  the  absolute  death  of  Art."  This  "of 
course"  is  a  most  astounding  discovery !  It  is  more  than 
probable  that  a  mind  constituted  as  Mr.  Ingersoll's  can 
see  no  "plan"  or  "design"  in  the  First  Commandment 
only  to  discourage  Art.  This  to  his  "mind"  was  Jehovah's 
supreme  purpose  in  giving  this  command  to  Moses. 

The  other  serious  charge  he  brings  against  the  Deca- 
logue is,  that  the  Tenth  Commandment  places  "woman  on 
an  exact  equality  with  other  property."  The  way  he 
reaches  this  remarkable  conclusion  is,  that  in  this  com- 
mand aimed  at  the  sin  of  covetousness  God  seems  to  have 
made  the  mistake  of  classifying  woman  among  the  list  of 
things  likely  to  be  coveted.     This  makes  it  clear  to  "the 

mind"  of  Mr.  I that  God  designed  woman  to  be  a 

chattel.  Now  there  is  some  ground  to  suspect  that  Mr. 
Ingersoll  has  secret  objections  to  the  other  eight  com- 


222  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

mandments  if  the  whole  truth  were  known.  I  have  a 
distinct  remembrance,  some  years  ago,  of  reading  in  a 
paper  called  the  Truth  Seeker  an  article  from  the  pen  of 
Colonel  Ingersoll  advocating  most  zealously,  in  his  best 
vein,  the  justice,  morality,  and  propriety  of  opening  the 
mails  of  the  United  States  to  the  carrying  and  disseminat- 
ing corrupting  and  obscene  literature  among  the  rising 
generation  of  this  great  Republic.  He  wrote  bitter  things 
against  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  because  they 
did  not  see  the  matter  as  he  and  the  Infidel  League  of  the 
country  saw  it.  A  man  who  openly  advocates  the  freedom 
of  the  mails  to  all  the  obscene  paintings  and  pamphlets 
of  this  corrupt  age  can  not  be  suspected  of  having  a  very 
high  regard  for  the  command  which  says,  "Thou  shalt 
not  commit  adultery,"  or  "Thou  shalt  not  covet  they  neigh- 
bor's wife."  Nor  can  much  stress  be  laid  on  his  pretended 
abhorrence  "of  polygamy,"  after  his  averments  advocat- 
ing the  freedom  of  the  mails  to  all  the  vile  slum  of  liber- 
tinism and  of  all  the  houses  of  assignation  in  the  nation. 
He  then  caps  the  climax  of  his  blasphemous  allusions  to 
the  Decalogue  by  saying,  "So  far  as  we  know  Jehovah 
kept  only  one  of  these  Commandments — he  worshiped  no 
other  God."  One  would  have  thought  that  the  Appletons 
would  have  exhibited  more  respect  for  the  moral  sense 
of  their  readers,  than  to  have  invited  this  ribald  joker  to 
prepare  an  article  on  the  Christian  religion  for  the  North 
American  Review.  But  they  did  it;  and  these  are  some 
of  the  points  of  this  supposed  able  defense  of  this  Chief 
Apostle  of  American  Infidelity. 

While  on  this  point  it  may  be  proper  to  reply  to  Mr. 
Ingersoll's  strongest  point  against  the  Bible — it  certainly 
is  his  most  plausible  and  forcible  argument — viz. :  his 
assault  on  the  apparent  sanction  of  the  institution  of 
polygamy  by  the  Bible.  Judge  Black's  reply  does  not 
satisfy  Mr.  Ingersoll  and  probably  some  others.  It  is  this : 
The  Old  Testament  neither  commanded  nor  prohibited 
polygamy;  but  only  discouraged  it.  The  fact  is  clear  that 
God  did  not  command  it;  but  it  is  not  so  clear  that  He 
did  not  prohibit  it  by  suitable  moral   enactments.     In 


THB  MISTAKES  OF  INGBRSOLL.  223 

Matthew,  nineteenth  chapter,  we  have  the  following :  "The 
Pharisees  also  came  to  Him  [Christ],  tempting  Him,  and 
saying  unto  Him :  Is  it  lawful  for  a  man  to  put  away  his 
wife  for  every  cause?  He  answered:  Have  ye  not  read 
that  He  which  made  them  male  and  female,  and  said  for 
this  cause  shall  a  man  leave  father  and  mother  and  shall 
cleave  to  his  wife,  and  they  twain  shall  be  one  flesh? 
Wherefore  they  are  no  more  twain,  but  one  flesh.  What, 
therefore,  God  hath  joined  together  let  no  man  put  asun- 
der. They  say  unto  Him,  Why  did  Moses  then  command 
to  give  a  writing  of  divorcement?  He  saith  to  them: 
Moses  because  of  the  hardness  of  your  hearts  suffered 
you  to  put  away  your  wives ;  but  from  the  beginning  it  was 
not  so.  And  I  say  unto  you,  whosoever  shall  put  away 
his  wife  except  it  be  for  fornication  and  shall  marry 
another  committeth  adultery,  and  whosoever  marrieth  her 
that  is  put  away  doth  commit  adultery." 

This  argument  of  Christ  with  the  Pharisees  assumes 
that  marriage  was  a  Divine  institution,  and  that  it  con- 
sisted in  the  union  of  one  man  and  one  woman.  He  cre- 
ated them  at  "the  beginning  male  and  female,"  and  "they 
twain"  became  "one  flesh."  In  the  Old  as  well  as  in  the 
New  Testament  the  terms  husband  and  wife,  in  the  singu- 
lar, are  constantly  occurring.  If  polygamy  had  been  the 
Divine  intention,  there  would  have  been  more  than  one 
woman  created  at  the  beginning.  Again  the  equality  of 
the  sexes  with  a  slight  preponderance  of  the  males  as  to 
numbers,  clearly  shows  the  Divine  purpose  in  favor  of 
monogamy.  And  this  equality  is  world-wide.  Dr.  Paley 
makes  the  pertinent  remark  on  this  argument  of  Christ: 
"If  whoever  putteth  away  his  wife  and  marrieth  another, 
the  first  wife  being  alive,  is  no  less  guilty  of  adultery; 
because  the  adultery  does  not  consist  in  the  repudiation 
of  the  first  wife;  for  however  cruel  and  unjust  that  may  be 
it  is  not  adultery;  but  entering  into  a  second  marriage  dur- 
ing the  legal  existence  and  obligation  of  the  first."  "It 
was  not  so,"  says  Christ,  "in  the  beginning."  If  there 
ever  was  a  time  in  the  history  of  the  race  when  polygamy 
could  have  the  semblance  of  an  excuse,  it  was  in  the  in- 


224  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

fancy  of  the  race,  where  rapid  multiplication  was  appa- 
rently called  for.  Wherefore  then  is  it  mentioned  in  the 
Old  Testament  that  certain  Bible  characters  had  more 
than  one  wife?  We  answer  by  another  question:  why 
do  all  honest  historians  chronicle  things  that  are  not  cred- 
itable to  nations  and  individuals,  without  commenting  on 
the  justice  or  morals  of  their  practices?  Evidently  not 
to  sanction  their  wrongs,  but  to  be  truthful  historians. 
It  is  also  quite  evident  that  Paul's  injunction  that  bishops 
and  deacons  are  to  be  husbands  of  one  wife  is  in  accord 
with  the  early  instructions  and  practice  of  the  ancient 
Church  in  its  best  estate.  Mr.  Ingersoll  asks  why  a  little 
legislation  on  the  subject  of  polygamy  would  not  have 
been  good  to  have  discouraged  the  practice?  We  say 
again,  that  Christ  affirms  that  it  was  so  "in  the  beginning.', 
We  suppose  that  this  question  of  polygamy  was  a  very 
difficult  one  to  handle  then  as  now,  because  those  who  had 
the  largest  harems  were  often  their  kings  and  legislators. 
It  would  be  quite  as  pertinent  for  Mr.  Ingersoll  to  charge 
the  American  nation  as  favoring  Mormon  polygamy  be- 
cause they  have  not  summarily  suppressed  it,  as  to  charge 
God  and  the  Jews  with  the  sin  of  polygamy.  The  fact  is, 
that  polygamy  was  and  still  is  an  Oriental  vice,  and  a 
hundred-fold  more  prevalent  among  the  Gentile  nations  of 
the  East  than  among  the  Jews;  and  yet,  strange  to  say, 
he  has  not  one  word  of  condemnation  for  it  anywhere 
else  but  among  the  hated  Jews !    This  is  a  very  singular 

mental  phenomenon  in  Mr.  I and  his  sympathizers. 

Reflective  people  often  wonder  why  this  unjust  discrimi- 
nation !  There  is  a  cause.  The  whole  question  of  polyg- 
amy is  near  akin  to  the  great  social  evil  that  to-day  afflicts 
and  disgraces  all  lands,  civilized  and  uncivilized.  Human 
depravity  is  the  cause,  and  the  fault  is  not  with  the  Bible 
nor  the  God  of  the  Bible.  Why  does  not  Mr.  Ingersoll 
use  his  glib  pen  and  fascinating  oratory  in  abating  these 
nuisances  that  Christianity  is  in  no  way  accountable  for, 
and  let  the  poor  Jews  rest  awhile?  They  doubtless  are 
guilty  of  many  wrong  things,  and  have  enough  to  bear; 
but  "they  are  not  sinners  above  all  other''  nations,  that 


THE  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL.         225 

they  should  be  gibbeted  by  a  class  of  men  who  are  for- 
ever prating  of  their  toleration  and  liberalism.  One  of  the 
mistakes  of  Moses  was  not  the  common  one  of  Colonel 
Ingersoll,  of  constantly  berating  the  religion  of  other 
nations.  He  said  harder  things  of  his  own  brethren,  the 
Jews,  than  he  ever  did  of  the  Gentiles.  Some  people  have 
an  idea  that  it  would  be  a  most  seemly  thing  for  Mr. 
Ingersoll  to  devote  the  residue  of  his  life  against  the  mis- 
takes and  vices  of  some  of  the  other  great  religions  of  the 
world,  but  especially  against  the  vices  of  polygamy,  intem- 
perance, and  libertinism  of  his  own  country,  and  let  the 
Jews  have  a  little  rest  from  eternal  punishment,  so  far  as 
he  appears  able  to  visit  it  on  them.  Or  are  we  to  infer 
that  he  will  continue  his  favorite  enjoyment  of  hurling  his 
anathemas  on  the  Jews  to  all  eternity? 

Mr.  Ingersoll  asks :  "Why  were  Jewish  people  as  wicked, 
cruel,  and  ignorant  with  a  revelation  from  God  as  other 
nations  without  it?"  The  only  trouble  with  this  question 
is  that  it  is  not  true.  Some  Jews  doubtless  were  "wicked, 
cruel,  and  ignorant,"  but  not  so  cruel,  wicked,  and  igno- 
rant as  the  nations  around  them  generally  were.  He 
might  as  well  ask,  why  are  the  people  of  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain  as  wicked,  cruel,  and  ignorant  as  the 
people  of  China,  India,  and  Africa?  Every  one  knows 
how  much  force  there  would  be  in  such  a  question.  There 
is  as  much  reason  as  in  the  other. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  tells  us  that  "the  old  argument,"  that  the 
early  Christians  and  apostles  "were  either  good  men  or 
bad  men"  is  not  "logical."  He  says  "there  is,  at  least, 
one  other  class — the  mistaken,  and  both  of  these  classes 
may  belong  to  this.  Thousands  of  most  excellent  people 
have  been  deceived."  "There  was  in  all  probability  such 
a  man  as  Jesus  Christ.  He  may  have  lived  in  Jerusalem. 
He  may  have  been  crucified;  but  that  He  was  the  Son  of 
God,  or  that  He  was  raised  from  the  dead  and  ascended 
bodily  to  heaven  has  never  been,  and  in  the  nature  of 
things  can  never  be,  substantiated." 

Now  the  concession  here  made  by  Mr.   I needs 

to  be  noted.    First,  that  the  apostles  were  good  men;  and 
15 


226  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

secondly,  that  such  a  man  as  Jesus  Christ  lived  in  Jeru- 
salem and  was  crucified.    This  is  an  important  admission 
for  Christianity   and   an  unfortunate  one   for   Infidelity. 
While  they  were  good  men  they  were  in  Mr.  Ingersoll's 
opinion  "mistaken."     Mistaken  in  what?     Of  course  in 
the  matter  of  Christ's  miracles,  resurrection,  and  ascen- 
sion.    In  matters  of  sight,  hearing,  and  feeling.     Let  us 
see.    Who  were  the  apostles  who  were  thus  "mistaken," 
or  deceived?     Matthew,  a  shrewd  custom-house  officer; 
Peter,  James,  and  John,  good,  sound,  common-sense  fisher- 
men; Luke,  a  cultured  physician,  and  St.  Paul,  a  learned 
Jew  with  keenest  metaphysical  acumen.     Now  these  are 
the  men  Mr.  Ingersoll  tells  you  were  ''mistaken"  in  these 
facts  of  sight,  hearing,  and  feeling.     They  claim  most 
positively  to  have  witnessed  His  astonishing  miracles,  His 
resurrection  and  ascension.    Now  if  eyesight,  hearing,  and 
touch  are  not  to  be  relied  on,  what  kind  of  evidence  may 
we  depend  on  to  establish  any  fact?    Certainly  if  any  evi- 
dence borders  on  the  infallible,  it  is  the  evidence  of  the 
senses.     It  is  morally  and  intellectually  certain  that  such 
men  could  not  all  be  deceived  in  their  harmonious  and 
concurrent  testimony  of  those  recorded  facts  of  the  Gos- 
pel !     Most  intelligent  and  educated  men  of  this  age  be- 
lieve  in   "the   old   argument  of   Christianity,"   that  "the 
apostles  were  either  good  men  or  bad  men."     They  see 
great  force  in  it.    They  must  have  been  false  or  true  wit- 
nesses— not  "mistaken"  witnesses.     This  is  precisely  the 
Apostle  Paul's  argument  for  the  resurrection  of  Christ. 
"If  Christ  be  not  risen  then  is  our  preaching  vain,  and 
your  faith  is  also  vain.    Yea,  and  we  are  found  false  wit- 
nesses of  God,  because  we  have  testified  of  God,  that  He 
raised  up  Christ  whom  He  raised  not  up."     Paul  here, 
who  was  no  novice  in  polemics,  takes  the  ground  squarely 
that  they  were  either  true  or  "false,"  and  not  "mistaken" 
witnesses.     He  does  not  ask  Mr.  Ingersoll  for  his  charitable 
construction  that  they  were  good  men,  but  "mistaken."    He 
does  not  thank  him  for  the  insinuation,  that  he  and  his  fel- 
low apostles  were  fools  and  simpletons.    He  admits  frankly 
that  he  and  his  fellow  apostles  were  either  good  men  or  very 


THE  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL.  227 

bad  men;  either  true  or  false,  and  nothing  more  nor  less. 
If  Mr.  Ingersoll's  position  be  true,  that  these  were  good 
men,  but  "mistaken,"  then  no  matters  of  fact  requiring 
eye  and  ear  witnesses  are  to  be  relied  on,  and  you  may  at 
once  abolish  all  your  courts  of  justice  where  matters  of 
fact  are  to  be  settled  by  the  senses.  But  this  is  too  absurd 
a  proposition  to  be  entertained  by  any  but  a  man  who  be- 
lieves that  it  is  more  probable  that  "matter  is  eternal" 
than  that  mind  is,  or  that  this  "earth  is  eternal  and  self- 
existent,"  than  that  God  is  eternal  and  self-existent. 

We  have  this  other  remarkable  statement  from  the  pen 
of  Mr.  Ingersoll :  "For  the  man  Christ,  .  .  .  mistaken 
though  He  was,  I  have  the  highest  admiration  and  respect. 
That  man  did  not,  as  I  believe,  claim  a  miraculous  origin ; 
He  did  not  pretend  to  heal  the  sick  or  raise  the  dead.  He 
claimed  simply  to  be  a  man,  and  taught  His  fellow-men 
that  love  is  stronger  than  hate." 

What  was  it  in  the  man  Christ  that  excites  Mr.  Inger- 
soll's "nighest  admiration  and  respect?"  It  certainly  must 
have  been  the  fact  that  Christ  "taught  His  fellow-men  that 
love  is  stronger  than  hate."  Of  course  His  life  illustrated 
this.  It  was  doubtless  Christ's  elevated  morals  and  intelli- 
gence. These  have  commanded  the  "highest  admiration 
and  respect"  of  the  greatest  infidels  of  every  age  since 
Christ.      But   what   was    Christ    mistaken    about?      Mr. 

I says,   "mistaken  though  He  was."     It  must  have 

been  about  His  claims  to  Divinity — to  a  supernatural 
"origin;"  to  working  miracles,  raising  the  dead  and  heal- 
ing the  sick;  for  Mr.  Ingersoll,  if  we  are  to  believe  what 
he  has  said  in  these  articles,  has  no  high  "admiration  and 
respect"  for  miracles  or  the  supernatural.  But  he  tells  us 
in  the  same  breath  in  which  he  expresses  his  "highest 
admiration  and  respect"  for  "the  man  Christ,"  that  in 
his  belief  Christ  did  not  "claim  a  miraculous  origin;  He 
did  not  pretend  to  heal  the  sick  or  raise  the  dead.  He 
claimed  simply  to  be  a  man,  and  taught  His  fellow-men 
that  love  is  stronger  than  hate."    What  was  He  mistaken 

about  then?     Will  Mr.   I tell  us?     But  where   did 

Mr.  Ingersoll  learn  that  fact,  that  Christ  never  "claimed  a 


228  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

miraculous  origin ;"  that  He  never  professed  "to  heal  the 
sick  or  raise  the  dead?"  If  He  learned  this  anywhere, 
it  must  have  been  from  the  Gospels,  which  are  the  only 
books  that  record  His  life  and  doings.  But  on  the  other 
hand,  if  Christ  did  not  claim  to  be  supernatural  and  to 
work  miracles,  then  Mr.  Ingersoll  ought  be  the  best  satis- 
fied man  with  "the  man  Christ"  to  be  found  anywhere 
in  this  country,  for  He  "taught  His  fellow-men  that  love 
is  stronger  than  hate,"  and  illustrated  it  too. 

We  might  have  some  respect  for  Mr.  Ingersoll's  high 
"admiration  and  respect"  for  Jesus  of  Nazareth  if  he 
had  not  at  other  times  and  places  said  ugly  things  of  Him. 
I  quote  the  following:  "Christianity  .  .  .  has  verified 
the  awful  declaration  of  its  Founder — a  declaration  that 
wet  with  blood  the  sword  He  came  to  bring,  and  made 
the  horizon  of  a  thousand  years  lurid  with  the  fagot's 
flames."  And  this  other  bitter  and  false  assertion :  "As  a 
matter  of  fact  the  New  Testament  is  more  decidedly  in 
favor  of  human  slavery  than  the  Old."  Not  that  I  believe 
or  admit  that  the  Old  favors  human  slavery;  but  if  Christ 
ever  did  favor  human  slavery,  then  how  could  Mr.  Inger- 
soll or  anybody  else  have  "the  highest  admiration  and  re- 
spect" for  Him,  or  any  respect  for  Him?  It  must  be 
apparent  to  all  that  Mr.  Ingersoll's  reckless  statements 
are  continually  involving  him  in  these  absurdities,  and 
reveal  the  fact  that  he  is  not  inclined  to  be  fair  and  honest 
in  his  treatment  of  Christianity. 

On  page  123,  North  American  Review,  Mr.  Ingersoll 
makes  a  very  triumphant  statement  to  the  effect  that  had 
Christ  been  God  He  would  have  foreseen  all  the  perse- 
cutions, crimes,  horrors,  infamies,  and  cruelties  of  the 
Dark  Ages,  and  would  have  prohibited  them.  Now  all 
this  is  puerile  twaddle !  It  is  not  respectable  nonsense ! 
The  idea  that  God  can  create  a  free  agent  and  then  control 
his  wishes  and  acts  is  simply  preposterous  silliness.  Why 
does  not  God,  who  foreknew  all  possible  sequences  and 
contingencies,  prevent  them?  Why  does  He  not  compel 
Mr.  Ingersoll  to  tell  the  truth,  or  if  he  is  ignorant  of  the 
truths  of  history,  sacred  and  profane,  why  does  He  not 


THE  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL.  229 

force  him  to  search  and  find  the  real  truths  and  facts,  and 
compel  him  to  honestly  state  them  when  he  attacks  the 
Christian  religion  ?    The  answer  is  simple.    He  made  Mr. 
Ingersoll  a  free  agent,  and  he  is  free  to  choose  ''darkness 
rather  than  light,"  and  error  than  truth,  and  to  pervert 
too  what  he  knows  is  truth.    Neither  his  atheism  nor  the 
God  of  the  Bible  will  or  can  prevent  him.    It  is  easy  to 
conceive  how  God  at  the  first  might  have  created  man  a 
machine,  and  of  course  without  accountability;  but  it  was 
clearly  impossible  to  create  a  being  with  intelligent  free 
will,  and  yet  he  be  unaccountable.    But  this  is  precisely  the 
kind  of  a  moral  world  modern  atheism  claims  ours  to  be, 
where  moral  accountability  is  a  myth,  and  all  the  distinc- 
tions of  right  and  wrong,  of  virtue  and  vice,  are  mere 
illusions  of  a  religious  fancy,  the  false  creations  of  relig- 
ious fanaticism.     Now  if  there  is  no  personal  God  in  the 
universe,  as  Mr.  Ingersoll  assumes  very  frankly  in  both 
of  his  articles  in  the  North  American  Review,  then  all  the 
horrid  crimes  and  persecutions  he  attributes  to  the  Jews 
and  their  Jehovah  and  to  the  teachings  of  Christ  are  not 
worth  the  paper  they  are  written  on,  since  there  is  no 
moral  accountability  without  a  Being  to  whom  we  are 
accountable;  and  if  there  were  on  his  hypothesis,  they 
could  not  help  doing  as  they  did,  because  God  knew  they 
would  do  so;   and  they  did  so  because  He  knew  they 
would;  and  therefore  they  were  the  victims  of  an  inexor- 
able fate  and  consequently  not  blameworthy.    If  this  doc- 
trine of  atheistic  fatalism  be  true,  then  polygamy,  slavery, 
and  the  cruelties  of  the  Jews  towards  their  captives  of 
war,  which  Mr.   Ingersoll  seems  never  to  tire  speaking 
of,  may  be  among  the  best  things  that  human  beings  have 
ever  done,  atheism  being  true  and  the  Bible  false;  and 
then  Mr.  Ingersoll's  florid  rhetoric  in  these  two  articles 
prove  vastly  too  much  for  his  own  cause.    But  those  who 
accept  the  Bible  as  a  Divine  revelation  can  easily  reconcile 
the  statement  of  these  facts  in  the  Sacred  Record  when 
they  remember  that  this  book  professes  to  be  a  true  his- 
tory of  the  nations  referred  to  without  commenting  on  the 
right  and  wrong  of  everything  it  relates. 


230  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

The  above  views  of  Mr.  Ingersoll  touching  the  Divine 
foreknowledge  of  God  on  the  acts  of  men  will  prepare 
you  to  appreciate  a  little  of  his  metaphysics  and  moral 
philosophy.  He  evidently  is  not  as  much  at  home  in  this 
field  as  he  is  in  rhetoric.  To  say  the  least,  these  views 
are  novel  and  probably  original.  He  asks :  "What  is  right, 
and  what  is  wrong?  Everything  is  right  that  tends  to  the 
happiness  of  mankind,  and  everything  is  wrong  that  in- 
creases human  misery."  Again:  "What  is  conscience?" 
Here  is  his  definition:  "If  a  man  were  incapable  of  suffer- 
ing, if  a  man  could  not  feel  pain,  the  word  'conscience' 
never  would  have  passed  his  lips."  "Consequences  deter- 
mine the  quality  of  an  action.  ...  If  consequences 
are  good,  so  is  the  action.  If  actions  had  no  consequences, 
they  would  be  neither  good  nor  bad.  Man  did  not  get  his 
knowledge  of  the  consequences  of  actions  from  God,  but 
from  experience  and  reason.  If  man  can  by  actual  experi- 
ment discover  the  right  and  wrong  of  actions,  is  it  not 
utterly  illogical  to  declare  that  they  who  do  not  believe 
in  God  can  have  no  standard  of  right  and  wrong?" 

Suppose  we  test  Mr.  Ingersoll's  standard  of  right  and 
wrong.  He  says  "everything  that  tends  to  the  happiness 
of  mankind  is  right."  If  he  means  everything  that  gives  a 
man  pleasurable  or  happy  feelings  we  should  dissent.  L,ust 
indulged  gives  pleasurable  feelings,  but  no  man  morally 
sane  believes  it  is  right.  Ardent  spirits  yield  pleasurable 
feelings,  but  it  is  not  therefore  right  to  drink  to  excess. 
Or  take  the  other  statement:  "Everything  is  wrong  that 
increaseth  the  sum  of  human  misery."  Not  necessarily. 
Human  misery  or  suffering  may  result  from  a  man's  doing 
right.  The  most  cruel  persecutions  and  the  most  terrible 
suffering  have  often  arisen  from  the  loftiest  moral  heroism. 
It  is  very  evident  Mr.  Ingersoll's  definition  of  right  and 
wrong  is  extremely  defective,  and  overthrows  his  own 
position. 

Take  the  other  loose  remark,  that  "consequences  deter- 
mine the  quality  of  an  action."  Suppose  you  deliberately 
intend  murder  in  heart  and  act ;  but  the  pistol  accidentally 
kills  its  owner.    Does  the  "consequence"  in  this  case  "de- 


THE  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL.  231 

termine  the  quality  of  the  action?"  Or  suppose  you  aim 
to  defend  a  friend  who  is  attacked  by  a  deadly  foe,  and  kill 
the  friend  instead  of  the  enemy.  Does  "the  consequence 
determine  the  quality  of  the  action?"  The  old  philosophy 
that  the  motive  determines  the  quality  of  an  action  will 
tally  better  with  the  standard  of  right  and  wrong  than  the 
above  new  theory.  Is  it  no  more  than  probable  that  Mr. 
Ingersoll  is  again  mistaken,  either  from  the  want  of  re- 
flection, or  honesty,  or  both?  A  man  who  starts  out  in 
this  world  without  an  intelligent  God,  who  believes  that  it 
is  more  probable  that  "matter  is  self-existent  and  eternal" 
than  that  mind  is,  can  hardly  be  expected  to  have  correct 
notions  of  right  and  wrong,  and  especially  of  the  true 
standard.  It  will  not  after  this  surprise  the  thinking  por- 
tion of  mankind  to  hear  Mr.  Ingersoll's  definition  of  con- 
science :  "If  a  man  were  incapable  of  suffering,  if  a  man 
could  not  feel  pain,  the  word  'conscience'  never  would 
have  passed  his  lips."  According  to  this  lucid  definition, 
"Balaam's  ass"  had  as  much  conscience  as  Mr.  Ingersoll, 
and  was  equally  accountable. 

He  says  we  may  get  some  "knowledge  of  right  and 
wrong  from  experience  and  reason."  True.  The  Bible 
admits  this;  but  does  this  fact  make  it  unimportant  to 
have  a  perfect  standard  of  right  and  wrong  when  there 
is  so  great  liability  to  set  up  very  different  standards,  and 
men  have  such  conflicting  notions  of  right  and  wrong? 
The  presumption  is,  there  should  be  some  universal  and 
correct  standard,  and  this  the  Bible  professes  to  give; 
namely,  "the  will  of  God."  If  it  be  true,  that  men  simply 
governed  by  "experience  and  reason"  hold  very  conflict- 
ing notions  of  right  and  wrong,  then  it  is  not  utterly  illog- 
ical to  declare  that  they  who  do  not  believe  in  God  can 
have  no  (correct)  standard  of  right  and  wrong." 

Ingersoll  and  Agnosticism. 

In  the  April  number  of  the  North  American  Review, 
1889,  appeared  an  article  from  Colonel  Ingersoll.  After 
a  careful  reading  I  felt  it  ought  to  be  answered.  I  wrote 
to  Mr.  Thorndike  Rice,  the  editor,  asking  him  if  he  would 


232  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

publish  a  respectful  reply  in  case  the  article  came  up  to 
their  standard  for  merit. 

This  paper  was  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  Thorndike  Rice 
at  the  time  of  his  death.  There  was  some  delay  before 
an  editor  took  his  place,  and  in  this  time  the  reply  seemed 
too  late.  It  was  sent  to  Mr.  Ingersoll.  He  read  it,  and 
admitted  that  I  had  treated  him  fairly  and  gentlemanly, 
and  in  a  letter  to  me  said  he  did  not  want  me  to  infer  that 
all  he  had  written  was  for  "buncomb."  What  was  bun- 
comb  and  what  not  all  will  have  to  judge  for  themselves 
who  have  read  his  articles. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  in  this  article  on  "Huxley  and  Agnosti- 
cism" has  given  us  a  very  racy  paper  in  his  inimitable 
style.  No  man  can  equal  him  in  his  peculiar  vein.  It  is 
very  difficult  to  meet  him  because  of  his  method  of  attack 
and  bewitching  rhetoric.  So  far  as  I  have  read  him,  and 
that  has  been  quite  largely,  no  man  has  been  able  to  cope 
with  him  in  his  style  and  method  of  attack,  unless  it  was 
Father  Lambert,  the  Catholic  priest.  He  is  his  equal,  if 
not  more  than  a  match  for  him.  His  arguments  are  not 
hard  to  meet,  but  his  methods  are  such  that  few  men  can 
condescend  to  come  down  to  his  plane.  Two  things  make 
him  especially  strong — his  power  of  ridicule  and  sarcasm, 
and  his  transcendent  rhetoric.  These  capture  the  average 
reader,  and  make  him  forget  that  there  is  a  deep-hidden 
poverty  of  truth  and  reason  in  anything  he  says  or  writes. 
His  statements  are  bold  and  often  exceedingly  reckless, 
and  to  the  casual  reader  have  an  air  of  candor  and  plausi- 
bility, but  will  not  bear  close  and  searching  examination. 

Ingersoll  adopts  the  Socratic  method.  He  has  shown 
great  tact  in  this,  for  he  is  aware  that  it  is  much  easier 
to  ask  questions  than  to  answer  them.  It  is  a  fallacious 
kind  of  reasoning — not  necessarily  fallacious,  but  is  ca- 
pable of  being  so  used,  and  he  has  done  his  mightiest  in 
this  instance.  He  has  been  not  a  little  adroit  in  making 
a  quotation  from  a  certain  English  gentleman — principal 
of  King's  College — as  his  text,  in  which  there  is  probably 
a  little  looseness  of  statement  by  this  gentleman,  but  it  is 
mainly  correct  in  fact. 


THB  MISTAKES  OF  INGBRSOLL.  233 

I  now  propose  to  analyze  the  strong  points  of  this  re- 
markable deliverance  of  this  great  apostle  of  modern  In- 
fidelity, and  lay  bare  what  seems  to  me  its  unsoundness 
and  fallaciousness.  I  crave  a  careful  and  candid  reading 
of  this  my  attempted  exposure  of  a  most  captivating  paper 
by  the  Colonel.  I  do  ask  the  reader  to  give  Mr.  Inger- 
soll's  article  as  fair  a  reading  as  mine  at  the  same  time. 
Fair  play  is  all  that  Christianity  asks  in  its  discussions 
with  Infidelity,  whether  in  the  form  of  Agnosticism  or 
Atheism. 

His  first  question  is,  "Is  there  any  other  knowledge 
than  scientific  knowledge  ?"  There  undoubtedly  is.  There 
is  more  than  one  way  of  knowing  a  thing  or  gaining 
knowledge.  It  is  true  that  scientific  knowledge  is  an  im- 
portant kind  of  knowledge;  but  it  is  equally  true  that 
there  are  other  kinds  of  knowledge  just  as  real  and  proper, 
and  as  important  too,  as  scientific  truth;  namely,  the 
knowledge  we  gain  from  the  testimony  of  others.  The 
actual  or  practical  scientists  are  a  feeble  minority  in  our 
world.  Therefore  we  are  compelled  to  take  what  they  say 
on  trust,  or  faith,  if  you  please.  You  may  not  be  compe- 
tent to  make  the  experiments  yourself,  and  not  be  so  situ- 
ated that  you  can  if  you  were  competent  to  make  them. 
Most  men  accept  their  testimony  without  questioning 
often.  The  great  mass  of  men  are  compelled  to  do  so, 
or  remain  in  ignorance  of  many  valuable  facts. 

"Is  there  such  a  thing  as  scientific  ignorance?"  Yes, 
an  immense  amount  of  it.  No  less  a  scientist  than  the 
world-renowned  Edison  said  this  about  much  that  is  called 
exact  science  :  "The  text-books  are  mostly  misleading.  I 
get  mad  with  myself  when  I  think  I  have  believed  what 
was  so  learnedly  set  out  in  them.  There  are  more  frauds 
in  science  than  anywhere  else.  Take  a  whole  pile  of  them 
that  I  can  name,  and  you  will  find  uncertainty  if  not  im- 
position in  half  of  what  they  state  as  scientific  truth.  They 
have  time  and  again  set  down  experiments  as  done  by 
them,  curious  out-of-the-way  experiments  that  they 
never  did  and  upon  which  they  have  founded  so-called 
scientific  truths.    You  see  a  great  name  and  you  believe 


234  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

in  it.  Try  the  experiment  yourself,  and  you  find  the  result 
altogether  different."  I  only  make  this  quotation  to  show 
the  Colonel  that  what  he  calls  scientific  truth  is  as  unre- 
liable as  any  other  testimony. 

He  says,  "When  asked  to  give  your  opinion  on  any  sub- 
ject, can  it  be  said  that  ignorance  of  that  subject  is  irrele- 
vant?" Yes.  What  propriety  or  sense  is  there  in  a  man 
giving  an  opinion  on  a  subject  he  confesses  he  knows 
nothing  about  ? 

Again,  "How  can  a  man  obtain  any  knowledge  of  an 
unseen  world?"  How  can  you  obtain  any  knowledge  of 
Africa?  Ask  Livingstone  and  Stanley.  But  how  do  you 
know  that  they  ever  saw  Africa?  Only  from  their  testi- 
mony. Is  that  knowledge?  Yes,  a  very  important  kind 
of  knowledge.  Christ  says  He  came  from  heaven.  Paul 
says  he  was  caught  up  into  Paradise.  These  are  the 
highest  order  of  testimony. 

But  Colonel  Ingersoll  says,  "Nobody  has  come  back 
from  the  unseen  world."  How  does  he  know  that  ?  Those 
have  lived  who  said  they  did,  and  they  were  as  honest 
and  competent  to  testify  as  Livingstone  and  Stanley.  If 
these  men  could  give  information  concerning  Africa,  our 
Father  in  Heaven  could  give  us  the  needed  information 
about  heaven. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  candidly  admits  "that  all  this  does  not 
prove  the  non-existence  of  another  world — all  this  does 
not  demonstrate  that  death  ends  all,  but  it  is  the  justifi- 
cation of  the  Agnostic  who  candidly  says,  I  do  not  know." 
That  is  a  flimsy  and  puerile  justification  founded  on  the 
denial  of  human  testimony.  If  you  only  mean  that  you 
never  saw  the  unseen  world  yourself  when  you  say,  "I  do 
not  know,"  then  your  justification  so  far  may  be  admirable, 
but  no  farther. 

You.  say,  "The  principal  of  King's  College  states  that 
the  difference  between  an  Agnostic  and  a  Christian  lies 
not  in  the  fact  that  he  has  no  knowledge  of  these  things, 
but  that  he  does  not  believe  the  authority  on  which  these 
are  stated."  The  principal  of  King's  College  is  doubtless 
correct.    The  simple  difference  between  the  Agnostic  and 


THE  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL.  235 

the  Christian,  as  we  have  shown,  is  that  human  testi- 
monies are  a  substantial  and  valid  ground  of  belief  with 
the  Christian,  but  with  the  Agnostic  it  is  not.  All  along 
through  your  article  you  ignore  human  testimony  as  a 
sufficient  ground  of  belief  in  miracles  and  an  unseen  world. 
I  do  not  misrepresent  you,  as  the  reader  of  your  paper  will 
see.  The  real  difference,  then,  between  the  Agnostic  and 
the  Christian  is  this,  one  does  not  accept  human  testimony 
as  a  ground  of  belief,  and  the  other  does.  Now,  then,  what 
are  the  facts  about  the  place  and  importance  of  human 
testimony  as  a  ground  of  knowledge?  Why  this.  By  far 
the  greater  part  of  any  man's  knowledge  is  the  result  of 
faith  in  human  testimony.  The  Agnostic  has  in  all  vital 
particulars  the  same  kind  of  testimony  for  miracles  and 
in  an  unseen  world  that  he  has — unless  he  has  been  there — 
for  the  existence  of  Africa  and  Greenland. 

You  ask,  "By  what  testimony  can  we  substantiate  the 
prophecies?"  By  their  exact  fulfillment,  and  we  know 
they  were  uttered  hundreds  and  thousands  of  years  before 
their  fulfillment.  This  is  their  verification.  A  prophecy 
is  a  miracle  of  knowledge.  No  finite  being  can  say  what 
will  come  to  pass  in  a  hundred  or  a  thousand  years  hence. 
This  power  is  supernatural.  These  inimitable  prophecies 
of  the  Old  Testament  are  infallible  proofs  of  the  divinity 
of  the  Bible. 

You  ask,  "Has  there  not  been  a  mistake?"  If  so, 
show  it.  Do  not  assert  it,  unless  you  are  positively  certain 
of  it.  A  graceless  insinuation  may  have  all  the  force  of  a 
deliberate  falsehood. 

You  say,  "Certainly  the  Creator  of  man — if  such  ex- 
ists— knows  the  evidence  necessary  to  convince.  "Of 
course  He  does,  and  has  supplied  ample  and  cogent  evi- 
dence sufficient  to  convince  all  reasonable  men;  but  no 
amount  of  evidence,  however  rational  and  positive,  will 
satisfy  those  "who  love  darkness  rather  than  light."  The 
reader  will  observe  that  there  are  grave  doubts  in  Mr. 
Ingersoll's  mind  whether  there  is  a  "Creator  of  man;" 
he  says,  "if  such  exist."  It  is  well  to  keep  this  in  mind 
in  analyzing  his  arguments. 


236  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  retorts  on  the  principal  of  King's  College 
for  saying,  "The  word  infidel  perhaps  carries  with  it  an 
unpleasant  significance,  after  this  manner.  A  few  years 
ago  its  significance  was  so  unpleasant  that  the  man  to 
whom  the  word  was  applied  found  himself  in  prison  or  at 
the  stake.  In  particularly  kind  communities  he  was  put 
in  the  stocks,  pelted  with  offal,  derided  by  hypocrites, 
scorned  by  ignorance,  jeered  by  cowardice,  and  all  the 
priests  passed  by  on  the  other  side."  Does  Mr.  Ingersoll 
pretend  in  candor  that  history  bears  out  this  broad  state- 
ment without  any  qualification  ?  He  here  asserts  this  with 
the  positiveness  that  any  one  would  be  warranted  in  doing, 
if  it  were  notoriously  true.  The  only  trouble  with  it  as 
an  argument,  is  that  it  is  notoriously  false  to  true  history. 
Please  name  some  of  the  infidels  of  the  world  who  were 
thus  sorely  persecuted  by  imprisonment,  by  the  stake, 
were  "pelted  with  offal,"  and  all  that,  and  the  branch  of 
the  Church  that  did  it.  Was  it  Celsus,  or  Julian  the  Apos- 
tate, or  Voltaire,  or  Rousseau,  or  Bolingbroke,  or  Hume, 
or  Gibbon,  or  Strauss,  or  Robert  G.  Ingersoll  ?  Mr.  Inger- 
soll knows,  or  ought  to  know,  that  his  broad  assertion  has 
no  application  to  any  to  whom  the  name  Infidel  properly 
belongs.  There  may  be  one  or  two  exceptions.  He  further 
says,  "It  is  natural  for  the  Church  to  hate  unbelievers — 
natural  for  the  pulpit  to  despise  one  who  refuses  to  sub- 
scribe, who  refuses  to  give.  It  is  a  question  of  revenue 
instead  of  religion.  It  uses  its  power,  its  influence  to  com- 
pel contribution.    It  forgives  the  giver." 

Is  it  possible  that  Mr.  Ingersoll  believes  this  is  the 
honest  truth  concerning  the  Christian  Church  and  pulpit? 
Would  not  Christian  charity  lead  us  to  suppose  that  he 
wrote  this  in  the  heat  of  passion,  and  not  in  calm  con- 
viction? Was  he  not  tempted  to  indulge  his  morbid  sar- 
casm just  here,  rather  than  calm  reason?  Suppose  we 
should  retort  by  saying:  "It  is  natural  for  Infidelity  to 
hate  the  Church,  it  is  natural  for  the  Infidel  lecturer  to 
despise  one  who  refuses  to  attend  his  lectures  or  read  his 
tracts.  It  is  a  question  of  revenue,  rather  than  Infidelity." 
Would  he  and  the  friends  of  Agnosticism  consider  this  a 


THE  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL.  237 

legitimate  argument  against  Infidelity?  Would  they  not 
rather  suspect  that  it  was  a  little  sarcasm  and  gall  on  the 
part  of  Christianity?  It  is  certainly  as  guiltless  of  argu- 
ment as  it  is  of  truth.  Immediately  after  this  ungracious 
and  unmanly  fling  at  the  Christian  Church  and  pulpit  he 
uses  this  significant  language:  "If  a  community  is  thor- 
oughly civilized,  why  should  it  be  an  unpleasant  thing 
for  a  man  to  express  his  belief  in  respectful  language?" 
(  ! !)  How  is  that  for  a  gentleman  that  poses  as  a  civil- 
ized Agnostic  ?  I  am  perfectly  certain  that  the  Christian 
religion  demands  both  freedom  of  speech  and  of  opinion, 
but  it  must  be  respectful  speech.  Certainly  the  principal 
of  King's  College  did  not  use  disrespectful  language  in  the 
quotation  that  forms  the  text  of  Mr.  Ingersoll's  entire 
article. 

I  recollect  distinctly  in  a  former  article  from  Mr. 
Ingersoll  in  the  North  American  Review  this  significant 
statement,  "That  arguments  can  not  be  answered  by  per- 
sonal abuse;  that  there  is  no  logic  in  slander,  and  that 
falsehood  in  the  long  run  defeats  itself."  All  this  is  very 
true;  but  no  man  that  I  ever  have  read  needs  to  be  re- 
minded of  this  so  much  as  Mr.  Ingersoll  himself.  This 
is  what  he  is  constantly  guilty  of,  slander,  vituperation, 
blasphemy,  and  bold  assertions  are  the  staple  of  most  that 
he  writes  and  lectures  against  the  Christian  religion.  Lest 
I  should  appear  to  be  dealing  in  assertions,  permit  me  to 
quote  a  few  passages — I  could  quote  enough  of  the  same 
sort  from  his  numerous  lectures  and  magazine  articles  to 
make  quite  a  book,  to  settle  the  fact  that  he  most  flagrantly 
violates  his  observation  that  "arguments  can  not  be  an- 
swered by  personal  abuse,"  etc.  In  his  "Mistakes  of 
Moses"  we  have  this  sweet  morsel :  "They  have  in  Massa- 
chusetts, at  a  place  called  Andover,  a  kind  of  minister  fac- 
tory, where  each  professor  takes  an  oath  once  in  five  years 
— that  time  being  considered  the  life  of  an  oath — that  he 
has  not  during  the  last  five  years  and  will  not  during  the 
next  five  years  intellectually  advance.  There  is  probably 
no  oath  they  could  easier  keep." 

"I  have  not  singled  out  Andover  factory  because  it  is 


238  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

worse  than  others.  They  are  all  about  the  same.  The 
professors  for  the  most  part  are  ministers  who  failed  in 
the  pulpit,  and  were  retired  to  the  seminary  on  account 
of  their  deficiency  in  reason  and  their  excess  of  faith. 
.  .  .  They  are  for  the  most  part  engaged  in  poisoning 
the  minds  of  the  young,  prejudicing  the  children  against 
science,  teaching  the  astronomy  and  geology  of  the  Bible, 
and  inducing  all  to  desert  the  sublime  standard  of  reason. 
These  orthodox  ministers  do  not  add  to  the  sum  of  knowl- 
edge. They  produce  nothing.  They  live  upon  alms.  They 
hate  laughter  and  joy.  They  officiate  at  weddings,  sprinkle 
water  on  babes,  and  utter  meaningless  words  and  barren 
promises  above  the  dead." 

"Like  all  hypocrites  these  men  overstate  the  case  to 
such  a  degree,  and  so  turn  and  pervert  facts  and  words, 
that  they  succeed  only  in  gaining  the  applause  of  other 
hypocrites  like  themselves." 

"The  real  oppressor,  enslaver,  corrupter  of  the  people 
is  the  Bible.  That  Book  is  the  chain  that  binds,  the  dun- 
geon that  holds  the  clergy.  That  book  spreads  the  pall  of 
superstition  over  the  colleges  and  schools.  That  Book  puts 
out  the  eyes  of  science  and  makes  honest  investigation  a 
crime." 

Need  I  sicken  the  reader  by  giving  any  more  cases  of 
slander  and  vituperation.  These  are  less  blasphemous 
than  many  others  I  might  adduce.  All  this  sounds  like 
the  ravings  of  a  crank,  and  is  a  remarkable  example  of  his 
own  remark,  "that  falsehood  in  the  long  run  defeats  itself." 
He  continues  his  question  box:  "Does  any  theologian 
hate  the  man  he  can  answer?"  A  sufficient  answer  to  this 
profound  inquiry  would  be,  Does  any  Infidel  hate  the  the- 
ologian he  can  answer?  That  is  about  all  the  force  there 
is  in  the  question. 

Again :  "It  is  further  claimed  that  the  New  Testament 
is  an  inspired  account  of  what  Christ  and  His  disciples 
did  and  said.  Is  there  any  obligation  resting  on  any  hu- 
man being  to  believe  this  account?  Is  it  within  the  power 
of  a  man  to  determine  the  influence  that  testimony  shall 
have  on  his  mind  ?" 


THE  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL.  239 

Certainly  there  is  a  most  weighty  obligation  on  every 
man  to  believe  this  account  if  it  is  true.  Every  man  is  as 
much  under  obligation  to  believe  the  Gospel  record  if  it  is 
true,  as  every  true  American  is  to  believe  in  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence,  and  more  so.  We  have  as  good  evi- 
dence that  the  writers  of  the  Gospels  were  good  and  truth- 
ful men,  as  we  have  that  the  framers  and  signers  of  that 
instrument  were  good  and  loyal  Americans.  We  have 
as  much  and  more  reason  to  suppose  that  the  framers  and 
signers  of  that  immortal  document  were  prejudiced  and 
mistaken.  Let  any  man  in  this  country  assume  that  our 
forefathers  were  prejudiced  and  superstitious,  and  that 
they  exaggerated  the  treatment  they  received  from  the 
mother  country,  would  such  an  assumption  weaken  your 
faith  in  the  spirit  and  facts  therein  related,  or  lessen  your 
obligation  as  an  American  citizen  to  sacredly  and  loyally 
accept  its  principles  and  teachings?  I  trow  not,  unless 
you  are  a  tory  or  a  monarchist. 

But  the  other  question,  "Is  it  within  the  power  of  man 
to  determine  the  influence  that  testimony  shall  have  on  his 
mind?"  It  undoubtedly  is  in  our  power  to  determine  what 
influence  certain  kinds  of  testimony  ought  to  have  on  our 
minds ;  but  it  sometimes  happens  that  there  are  a  few  men 
in  the  world  who  are  in  such  a  moral  state  that  no  kind 
or  degree  of  testimony  would  influence  them  against  their 
wishes.    I  fear  this  may  be  so  with  Mr.  Ingersoll. 

This  would  seem  to  be  the  proper  place  to  note  a  most 
singular  position  Mr.  Ingersoll  takes  regarding  human 
testimony.  "How  is  it  possible  to  know  whether  the  re- 
puted authors  of  the  Old  Testament  were  the  real  ones? 
The  witnesses  are  dead.  The  lips  that  could  testify  are 
dust.  Between  these  shores  roll  the  waves  of  many  cen- 
turies. Who  knows  whether  such  a  man  as  Moses  existed 
or  not?  .  .  .  For  this  we  have  only  their  word,  and 
about  that  there  is  this  difficulty:  we  know  nothing  of 
them,  and  consequently  can  not,  if  we  desire,  rely  upon 
their  character  for  truth.  This  evidence  is  simply  hear- 
say— it  is  weaker  than  that.  We  have  only  been  told  that 
they  said  these   things;   we   do  not  know  whether  the 


240  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

persons  claiming  to  be  inspired  wrote  these  things  or 
not;  neither  are  we  certain  that  such  persons  ever 
existed." 

Now  if  we  apply  this  novel  logic  to  Mr.  Ingersoll,  he 
would  find  that  about  three-fourths  of  all  he  knows  or 
thinks  he  knows  and  believes  is  based  on  what  others 
have  said  and  done  before  he  was  born.  It  is  impossible 
to  verify  what  Alexander,  Caesar,  and  Napoleon  Bonaparte 
said  and  did  only  by  what  the  historians  tell  us.  Yet  we 
believe  they  lived  and  did  what  is  attributed  to  them.  I 
suppose  it  is  safe  to  infer  that  one-fourth  of  what  the 
Colonel  knows  would  be  a  large  proportion  of  what  he 
really  knows  by  positive  and  scientific  induction  or  per- 
sonal demonstration.  How  much  time  has  he  given  to  the 
study  of  geology  and  botany  in  the  practical  field?  How 
much  to  zoology  ?  How  much  to  navigation  ?  How  much 
to  natural  history?  How  much  to  practical  astronomy? 
How  much  to  geography?  What  countries  has  he  ex- 
plored? How  much  to  statesmanship?  How  much  to 
theology?  About  three- fourths  or  more  of  all  he  knows 
he  has  gotten  as  he  styles  it  from  hearsay  or  human  testi- 
mony. He  has  gotten  most  that  he  knows  from  authors 
wTho  have  long  been  dead,  and  their  contemporaries  are 
dead.  How  does  he  know  that  they  ever  said  what  is 
attributed  to  them,  or  that  such  men  ever  existed?  If  you 
subtract  three-fourths  then  of  all  he  knows  by  personal 
and  actual  experiments  and  demonstration,  he  will  be 
seventy-five-hundredths  more  of  an  Agnostic  than  he  now 
is.  Vastly  most  of  his  and  every  man's  knowledge  is  de- 
rived from  what  others  have  said  and  done.  You  see  what 
an  immense  amount  of  credulity  or  testimony  a  professed 
Agnostic  can  and  does  swallow  without  knowing  it.  This 
ought  to  convince  Mr.  Ingersoll  and  all  professed  skeptics 
of  the  true  place  and  value  of  human  testimony.  It  is 
surprising  that  a  man  of  his  opportunities  and  general 
intelligence  should  allow  himself  to  make  such  sweeping 
and  loose  assertions  contradictory  of  the  millions  of  facts 
that  have  been  settled  for  centuries,  and  it  is  equally  sur- 
prising that  so  many  are  ready  to  gulp  them  down  without 


THE  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL.  241 

ever  stopping  to  sift  them  or  consider  whence  they  lead, 
or  to  what  absurdities  ! 

Now,  Colonel,  follow  your  humble  servant  for  a  mo- 
ment, and  see  where  your  philosophy  will  land  you.  In 
about  one  century  from  this  date,  allowing  you  a  green  old 
age,  Robert  G.  Ingersoll  will  be  dead  and  his  contempo- 
raries will  be  dead,  and  no  man  can  certainly  believe  that 
he  ever  lived  or  wrote  "The  Mistakes  of  Moses"  or  the 
discussions  in  the  North  American  Review — its  editors 
being  dead,  they  can  not  be  verified  or  demonstrably 
proved ;  consequently  some  future  philosopher  who  learned 
it  from  some  source  will  ask,  "How  is  it  possible  to  know 
whether  the  reputed  author  of  the  'Mistakes  of  Moses* 
and  'Huxley  and  Agnosticism'  was  the  real  writer? 
The  witnesses  are  dead.  The  lips  that  could  testify  are 
dust.  Who  knows  whether  such  a  man  as  Colonel  Inger- 
soll ever  existed  or  not?  For  this  we  have  only  their 
word,  and  about  that  there  is  this  difficulty:  we  know 
nothing  of  them,  and  consequently  can  not,  if  we  desire, 
rely  upon  their  character  for  truth.  This  evidence  is 
simply  hearsay,"  etc.  And  further  than  this  some  future 
doubter  of  a  charitable  and  rational  turn  of  mind  and 
peculiarly  molded  mentally,  will  say:  "If  R.  G.  Ingersoll 
wrote  the  'Mistakes  of  Moses'  he  never  was  guilty  of  such 
ribaldry  and  coarse  personalities  as  are  found  in  that 
pamphlet  and  his  other  writings.  Some  superstitious 
enemy  has  tampered  with  them  and  inserted  those  hard 
sayings  to  damage  his  philosophy.  Of  course  some  one 
did  it;  but  not  such  a  high-minded  man  as  he  would  make 
such  loose  and  sweeping  assertions  and  coarse  flings.  The 
future  reader  must  use  his  reason  and  reject  everything 
that  does  not  comport  with  reason  you  see.  He  must  be 
versed  in  the  Higher  Criticism  of  this  cultured  age — he 
must.  Yes,  I  forgot  to  mention  that  Shakespeare  is  dead 
and  no  one  lives  who  knew  him — if  such  a  man  lived. 
Probably  the  fellow  who  says  Bacon  wrote  what  most  peo- 
ple believe  William  Shakespeare  wrote,  is  probably  an 
Agnostic  who  knows  what  he  does  not  know.  Yes,  and 
Napoleon  is  dead  and  all  his  generals  and  comrades  are 
16 


242  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

dead.  Probably  this  will  give  you  a  hint  why  Archbishop 
Whately  wrote  a  book  entitled  "Historic  Doubts  of  the 
Existence  of  Napoleon  Bonaparte."  It  might  enlighten 
the  Colonel  to  read  that  book.  It  might  confirm  his 
Agnosticism,  or  lead  him  to  a  more  rational  faith.  One 
more  smart  thing  the  Colonel  says  in  this  luminous  article 
is,  that  no  man  in  this  age  ever  witnessed  a  miracle,  there- 
fore no  man  in  any  other  age  ever  did.  This  Mr.  Hume 
said  before  the  Colonel  was  born  the  first  time,  and  he  will 
have  to  "be  born  again"  before  he  will  see  its  transparent 
fallacy.  It  was  exploded  long  years  ago  by  able  logicians. 
In  plain,  simple  English  it  may  be  stated  thus :  What  is 
contrary  to  general  experience  is  not  to  be  believed.  The 
majority  of  mankind  have  never  seen  Greenland  or  Terra 
Del  Fuego;  therefore  there  are  no  such  countries.  The 
raising  the  dead  is  contrary  to  general  experience;  there- 
fore such  a  thing  never  occurred.  The  king  of  Bantam 
when  told  that  water  sometimes  took  on  the  solid  form 
said  it  was  impossible,  because  the  people  of  Bantam  had 
never  seen  such  a  thing.  Mr.  Ingersoll,  there  have  thou- 
sands of  things  occurred  in  this  world  that  never  will 
occur  again  or  be  seen  again;  but  it  does  not  follow  that 
they  are  not  facts  because  you  have  not  seen  them,  or  that 
the  great  mass  of  mankind  will  never  see  them  again. 
But  you  say  it  is  impossible.  How  do  you  know  it  is  im- 
possible? That  is  a  violent  assumption.  All  things  are 
possible  with  God,  and  God  may  have  the  best  of  moral 
reasons  for  varying  the  course  of  natural  law  that  do  not 
appear  to  a  man  agnostically  molded,  or,  if  you  please, 
inclined.  We  have  as  good  testimony  as  the  world  could 
produce  for  any  matter  of  fact  that  God  has  so  done  in 
different  periods  of  human  history;  as  good  as  we  have 
for  the  history  and  acts  of  Alexander  or  Julius  Caesar. 

It  is  difficult  to  classify  the  Colonel's  rhetorical  essay, 
but  we  must  not  pass  over  or  skip  his  strong  points.  Here 
is  one  of  them:  "The  civilized  man  rises  far  above  the 
bigotry  of  one  who  has  been  born  again."  The  interpre- 
tation of  this  magnanimous  (?)  sentence  is  this:  The 
Christian  is  uncivilized  and  the  Infidel  is  civilized.    Where 


THE  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL.  243 

did  the  Infidel  get  his  civilization  from?     We  answer  by 
another.    Where  does  the  moon  get  her  light? 

Again  he  asks :  "Can  there  be  anything  more  consoling 
than  to  feel  and  know  that  Jehovah  is  not  God?" — that 
the  message  of  the  Old  Testament  is  not  from  the  In- 
finite ?"  Can  there  be  anything  more  gloomy  than  to  think 
Jehovah  is  not  God?  In  other  words,  can  there  be  any- 
thing more  gloomy  than  Agnosticism  which  tells  us 
the  future  is  unknown — no  intimation  of  what  that  future 
is  to  be  or  what  is  in  store  for  us,  or  whether  there  be 
any  future?  Is  there  any  consolation  in  darkness  and 
doubt?  If  there  is  such  a  thing  as  "taking  a  leap  in  the 
dark,"  is  not  that  thing  fitly  symbolized  by  Agnosticism? 
If  an  Agnostic  really  knows  nothing  about  a  future  and 
unknown  world,  and  has  serious  doubts  whether  there  is 
an  unknown  world,  why  in  reason  and  consistency  does 
he  not  cease  philosophizing  and  talking  about  it  so  much? 
It  is  neither  common  sense  nor  modesty  to  be  constantly 
obtruding  their  opinions  about  things  they  confess  they 
know  nothing  about.  But  men  who  have  faith  in  a  God  of 
truth,  righteousness,  and  love  and  a  great  future,  may  be 
permitted  to  express  their  views  about  them.  But  pre- 
sumptively if  there  is  a  future  world,  and  there  is  an  in- 
finitely wise  and  good  Father,  it  would  be  like  Him  to  give 
His  inquiring  children  some  information  on  such  an  im- 
portant and  universal  desire  to  know  something  about  that 
future  and  our  dear  departed.  Antecedently  there  is  a 
very  strong  and  reasonable  presumption  in  favor  of  this 
view.  But  Agnosticism  assumes  that  if  there  is  a  God 
and  a  future  world,  He  would  not  be  likely  to  give  us  any 
such  information  concerning  it.  He  would  not  conde- 
scend to  give  even  one  little  ray  of  light  or  hope  to  cheer 
earth's  sorrowing  ones.  The  Agnostic  must  admit  there  is 
much  trouble  and  suffering  in  this  world,  much  that  is 
inscrutable  unless  there  is  a  glorious  future.  Will  not  the 
Universal  Father  be  kind  enough  to  give  us  a  little  glance 
into  the  great  dark  unknown?  The  Agnostic  says  He 
has  not.  There  is  no  hope  that  He  will !  Mr.  Ingersoll 
says  emphatically:  "No  person  has  come  back  from  the 


244  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

unseen.  No  authentic  message  has  been  delivered. 
Through  all  the  centuries  not  one  whisper  has  broken  the 
silence  that  lies  beyond  the  grave.  Countless  millions  have 
sought  for  some  evidence,  have  listened  in  vain  for  some 
word."  That  is  a  blasphemous  libel  on  the  character  of 
Jehovah !  Even  on  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament, 
for  He  has  been  infinitely  more  benevolent  to  His  erring 
children  than  Mr.  Ingersoll's  God.  It  is  a  blasphemous 
libel  on  the  universal  and  innocent  wish  of  the  race.  They 
rationally  expected  it,  and  our  God  has  not  disappointed 
them.  He  has  not  raised  expectations  to  thus  blast  them. 
He  does  not  thus  tantalize  His  children.  Away  with  such 
a  stoical,  Tartarean  philosophy ! 

Now,  then,  in  the  light  of  what  Mr.  Ingersoll  says 
above,  I  can  not  see  for  my  life  what  business  he  has  offi- 
ciating at  funerals,  as  he  is  frequently  doing,  if  there  is 
no  future,  or  if  it  is  a  dark  unknown,  if  "through  all  the 
centuries  not  one  whisper  has  broken  the  silence  that  lies 
beyond  the  grave."  The  very  fact  that  he  does  thus 
officiate  on  these  most  sacred  and  solemn  occasions,  is  a 
significant  evidence  that  universal  man  craves  some  in- 
formation about  the  future,  or  if  he  does  it  to  cast  ridicule 
on  the  universal  Christian  practice,  then  it  is  an  open 
insult  to  humanity's  most  sacred  emotions  and  tenderest 
relationships.  But  I  can  not  believe  this  latter.  In  the 
light,  however,  of  his  clearly-stated  views  his  officiating 
and  offering  consolation  to  the  survivors  is  like  pumping 
light  out  of  gross  darkness,  is  a  most  unseemly  thing,  an 
absurd  farce,  a  ludicrous  blasphemy ! 

Now,  then,  to  return  to  the  real  issue  under  consider- 
ation, if  such  a  revelation  meeting  the  universal  wish  of 
the  race  were  given  by  our  Father,  where  in  the  history 
of  the  nations  of  the  world  will  you  find  a  revelation  so 
full  and  complete  as  in  the  Christian  Scriptures?  When 
Mr.  Ingersoll  or  any  Infidel  philosophers  shall  produce 
a  fuller  and  more  consoling  revelation,  I  doubt  not  but 
the  Christian  world  will  be  only  too  glad  to  accept  it  and 
lay  aside  the  Bible;  but  they  beg  the  skeptical  world  not 
to  ask  them  to  give  up  this  till  they  produce  a  better. 


THE  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL.  245 

Hear  him  again:  "Is  it  not  possible  to  imagine  that  a 
great  and  tender  soul  living  in  Palestine  nearly  twenty- 
centuries  ago  was  misunderstood?"  Yes.  I  remember 
distinctly  that  the  Gospels  most  emphatically  again  and 
again  assert  that  nearly  the  whole  Jewish  nation  and  their 
most  learned  men  misunderstood  the  prophecies  made  re- 
garding His  Divinty  and  mission  among  men.  They  sup- 
posed that  He  was  only  a  temporal  prince  and  a  mere 
man,  and  it  took  Him  most  of  His  remarkable  career  to 
correct  this  misunderstanding.  And  He  was  compelled  to 
work  many  and  astonishing  miracles  to  convince  them  of 
their  mistake  regarding  Him.  There  are  many  to-day 
who  are  laboring  under  the  same  serious  mistake. 

But  the  things  Mr.  Ingersoll  "imagines"  the  writers 
of  the  Gospels  and  the  disciples  might  have  been  mistaken 
about,  is  a  most  improbable  conjecture;  viz.,  that  they  saw 
Christ  heal  the  sick,  the  lame,  the  blind,  the  deaf,  and  raise 
the  dead,  when  He  never  did  any  such  thing  nor  attempted 
it.  These  are  the  very  things  that  men,  common  every- 
day men,  are  most  competent  to  testify  to — what  they  saw 
and  heard.  If  there  is  any  testimony  in  our  courts  of 
justice  the  court  relies  on,  it  is  the  testimony  of  eye  and 
ear  witnesses.  I  say  it  is  the  most  improbable  thing  in 
the  world,  that  these  eye  and  ear  witnesses  could  be  mis- 
taken about  these  facts.  If  they  were  dishonest  men,  they 
might  have  lied  about  these  things ;  but  if  they  were  truth- 
ful men  there  is  no  ground  for  deception  unless  Christ  was 
a  juggler.  I  do  not  know  that  any  skeptic  of  this  age 
since  Strauss  will  risk  his  reputation  by  saying  that 
the  disciples  were  dishonest,  or  that  Christ  was  a  juggler. 
One  or  the  other  of  these  last  suppositions  must  be  true ; 
If  Christ  was  no  juggler  and  the  disciples  were  honest 
men,  then  they  could  not  be  mistaken  about  these  facts. 
The  Jews,  who  were  the  best  prepared  to  deny  these  re- 
ports and  expose  these  cheats  if  they  were  cheats,  ad- 
mitted the  facts  and  charged  Christ  with  "being  in  league 
with  the  devils,"  and  "casting  out  devils  through  Beelze- 
bub, the  prince  of  the  devils."  It  has  been  left  for  men 
nineteen  centuries  removed  from  the  events  to  deny  them 


246  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

and  question  them.     This  is  a  strange  exhibition  of  cre- 
dulity. 

But  Mr.  Ingersoll  makes  the  broad  assertion  that  "the 
miracles  of  the  Middle  Ages  rest  upon  substantially  the 
same  evidence"  as  those  recorded  in  the  Gospels.  It  is 
almost  unaccountable  that  a  man  in  his  conspicuous  po- 
sition should  make  so  reckless  a  statement  in  the  blaze  of 
sacred  and  profane  history.  Does  he  mean  to  say  that 
the  supposed  miracles  of  the  Middle  Ages  were  of  the 
same  character  and  performed  before  multitudes  of  friends 
and  enemies  in  open  day  under  the  gaze  of  keen-sighted 
enemies  who  were  waiting  to  expose  the  pretensions  of 
the  miracle  workers  ?  There  is  a  vast  remove  between  the 
miracles  of  Gospel  times  and  the  Middle  Ages  as  wide  as 
between  heaven  and  earth.  There  is  no  vital  point  of  com- 
parison. Mr.  Ingersoll  in  this  loose  statement  either  pre- 
sumes on  the  ignorance  of  his  readers,  or  takes  for  granted 
that  they  will  rather  accept  his  statement,  than  put  them- 
selves to  the  trouble  to  verify  it.  Many  of  his  readers 
know  his  statement  is  not  true,  and  others  will  find  it  out 
in  the  course  of  their  future  reading.  There  is  the  true 
and  false  in  the  world,  the  genuine  and  spurious.  There 
are  spurious  miracles  and  there  are  genuine,  and  we  have 
the  criteria  to  determine  their  character.  There  is  an  im- 
mense distance  between  the  jugglery  of  the  magician  and 
the  miracles  of  Jesus.  In  speaking  of  the  miracles  attrib- 
uted to  Christ,  Mr.  Ingersoll  says,  "The  world  has  been 
governed  by  jugglery  and  by  slight  of  hand."  This  is 
another  sweeping  statement.  There  is  some  jugglery  and 
some  slight  of  hand  in  the  world,  but  it  has  had  but  a 
small  place  in  the  government  of  this  world.  This  is  a 
marvelous  statement;  marvelous  for  its  recklessness!  mar- 
velous for  its  audacity !  and  marvelous  for  its  falsity !  but 
it  evidently  was  made  to  throw  discredit  on  the  splendid 
and  benevolent  works  of  Christ.  He  avers  in  this  paper 
that  he  is  anxious  "to  rescue  the  reputation  of  a  great  and 
splendid  man"  from  the  contempt  these  professed  miracles 
have  entailed  upon  Him.  Is  this  the  benevolent  under- 
taking that  Mr.  Ingersoll  has  been  so  industriously  en- 


THE  MISTAKES  OF  1NGERS0LL.  247 

gaged  in  in  his  lectures  on  "The  Mistakes  of  Moses" 
and  his  labored  articles  in  the  North  American  Review? 
How  greatly  then  he  has  been  misunderstood  !  You  would 
imagine  from  some  of  the  closing  paragraphs  of  this  re- 
markable paper  that  the  Nazarene  had  had  no  such  friend 
and  admirer  since  the  days  of  the  apostles.  Hear  him: 
"If  the  reputation  of  'our  Lord'  is  to  be  preserved — if  He 
is  to  stand  with  the  great  and  splendid  of  earth — all  claim 
to  the  miraculous,  to  the  supernatural,  must  be  aban- 
doned." But  presently  he  awakens  your  suspicions  by 
saying,  "If  the  man  Christ  lived."  You  observe  that  his 
agnosticism  bobs  up  and  beclouds  matters  about  the  re- 
ality— of  Christ's  existence.  But  I  will  have  occasion  to 
notice  this  point  in  a  moment  or  two  more  fully.  Mr. 
Ingersoll  attempts  to  classify  Christ  with  Humboldt  and 
Darwin,  but  most  Christians  are  not  at  all  satisfied  with 
that  classification.  They  believe  that  the  Apostle  Paul 
did  not  exaggerate  the  case  when  he  drew  this  portraiture : 
"Who  being  in  the  form  of  God  thought  it  not  robbery 
to  be  equal  with  God ;  but  made  Himself  of  no  reputation, 
and  took  on  Him  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  was  made 
in  the  likeness  of  men,  and  being  found  in  fashion  as  a 
man  He  humbled  Himself  and  became  obedient  unto  death. 
Wherefore  God  also  hath  highly  exalted  Him,  and  given 
Him  a  name  which  is  above  every  name,  that  at  the  name 
of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow  of  things  in  heaven  and 
things  in  earth  and  things  under  the  earth ;  and  that  every 
tongue  should  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord  to  the 
glory  of  God  the  Father."  Jesus  is  incomparable !  He  is 
unique !  He  has  no  peer  among  men  or  angels.  You,  Mr. 
Ingersoll,  and  all  Agnostics  will  some  day  bow  the  knee 
to  Jesus  and  confess  that  "He  is  Lord  to  the  glory  of  God 
the  Father."  It  may  be  unwillingly,  but  you  will  do  it. 
We  hope  it  will  be  willingly  and  from  conviction  produced 
by  further  light.  This  is  not  said  in  braggadocio  or  ban- 
teringly,  but  in  candid  faith.  The  world  is  coming  to  it. 
This  brings  me  to  the  point  above  mentioned,  as  to  whether 
Christ  really  did  live.    I  quote  his  words : 

"If  the  man  Christ  lived,  taught,  and  suffered,  if  He 


248  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

was  in  reality  great  and  noble,  who  is  His  friend — the  one 
who  attributes  to  Him  feats  of  jugglery,  or  he  who  main- 
tains that  these  stories  were  invented  by  zealous  ignorance 
and  believed  by  enthusiastic  credulity?"  Who  attributes 
to  Christ  "feats  of  jugglery?"  I  do  not  know  any  people 
who  do;  but  Mr.  Ingersoll  and  his  worst  enemies,  the 
Jews,  had  not  brass  or  facts  enough  to  convict  Him  of  it. 
They  admitted  the  facts  and  charged  Him  with  being  in 
league  with  the  Evil  One.  But  he  says,  "If  the  man  Christ 
lived,  taught,  and  suffered."  Now,  it  is  important  for  us 
to  know  if  Christ  really  lived,  taught,  and  suffered  as  re- 
corded in  the  Gospels.  It  is  important  to  this  argument 
to  know  whether  Mr.  Ingersoll  really  believes  that  He 
lived,  taught,  and  suffered  in  Palestine.  If  He  did  not 
live,  teach,  and  suffer,  then  there  is  no  need  of  the 
Colonel's  pious  effort  "to  rescue  the  reputation  of  the 
Christ  man  from  zealous  ignorance  and  enthusiastic  cre- 
dulity," if  the  Christ  of  the  Gospels  is  a  myth  I  can  not 
see  how  an  honest  Agnostic,  as  Mr.  Ingersoll  now  pro- 
fesses himself  to  be,  can  know  that  such  a  man  as  Christ 
ever  lived,  taught,  and  suffered,  who  has  no  faith  in  the 
Authorship  of  the  Gospels.  He  says:  "What  is  the  au- 
thority of  the  Christian?  Thousands  of  years  ago  it  is 
supposed  that  certain  men,  or  rather  uncertain  men,  wrote 
certain  things;  neither  are  we  certain  that  such  men  ever 
existed."  If  Christ  never  wrote  anything  Himself,  as  is 
generally  admitted,  then  you  will  see,  candid  reader,  the 
dilemma  Mr.  Ingersoll  puts  himself  in.  If  he  believes 
the  man  Christ  did  live  and  never  wrote  a  word  Himself, 
that  the  Colonel  is  compelled  to  believe  what  His  biog- 
raphers have  said  about  Him,  and  of  course  he  must 
believe  these  biographers  were  real  persons.  If  they  said 
anything  of  Him  that  was  true  and  praiseworthy,  who 
are  to  be  the  judges  of  what  was  true  and  what  was  false 
that  they  recorded?  Who  are  to  sit  in  judgment  on  the 
case?  I  believe  the  world — the  candid  world — will  be 
slow  to  commit  this  delicate  task  to  such  men  as  Mr.  In- 
gersoll and  Mr.  Huxley.  But  if  as  the  Gospels  assert  that 
He  did  heal  the  sick,  cure  the  lame  and  blind,  and  raise 


THE  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL.  249 

the  dead,  who  is  His  friend — the  one  who  charges  Him 
with  jugglery,  or  the  one  who  vindicated  His  Godhead? 
the  one  who  would  stain  His  honestly  gained  reputation, 
or  the  one  who  has  the  courage  to  claim  Divine  honors 
for  his  Master?  JVir.  Ingersoll,  please  do  not  attempt  at 
this  late  day  to  revive  the  old  Jewish  notion  that  Christ 
was  only  a  man — only  a  very  good  man,  if  you  prefer  that ! 
Nobody  doubts  He  was  good  who  believes  that  He  was  a 
real  man.  "Our  Lord,"  as  you  have  been  pleased  to  call 
Him,  will  excuse  you  from  any  farther  trouble  in  that 
direction.  He  prefers  not  to  have  His  reputation  rescued 
in  that  way.    Please  do  not  tinker  at  it. 

The  next  thrust  the  Colonel  makes  at  Christianity  is 
about  its  belief  or  teachings  concerning  demonology  and 
devils.  He  says :  "If  the  New  Testament  establishes  any- 
thing it  is  the  existence  of  innumerable  devils,  and  that 
these  Satanic  beings  absolutely  took  possession  of  the 
human  mind.  Is  this  true?  Can  anything  be  more  ab- 
surd?" 

Yes,  the  New  Testament  teaches  the  existence  of  devils 
and  that  they  take  possession  of  men's  minds.  Christians 
have  no  cause  to  shirk  the  issue  or  refine  on  it,  so  as  to 
accommodate  the  notions  of  scientific  infidelity  so  called. 
The  Scriptures  do  not  say  whether  these  "Satanic  beings" 
take  possession  of  men's  minds  without  the  consent  of  men 
or  not;  but  rather  leave  the  impressions  that  they  are  in- 
vited to  do  so.  The  Colonel  and  his  school  pooh-pooh 
at  this  doctrine,  and  ask  in  intellectual  surprise,  "Is  this 
true  ?  Can  anything  be  more  absurd  ?"  We  answer  to  the 
first  question,  It  is  marvelously,  painfully,  and  mortify- 
ingly  true.  But  we  are  a  little  curious  to  know  what  the 
Colonel's  idea  of  a  devil  is.  The  common  opinion  of  the 
word  is,  that  a  devil  is  some  kind  of  an  evil  spirit  or  being 
bent  on  mischief  and  wrong-doing;  one  that  is  opposed  to 
righteousness,  one  that  loves  and  practices  wrong,  that 
delights  in  sin  that  approves  of  theft,  murder,  licentious- 
ness, obscenity,  injustice,  and  all  abominations.  The  Bible 
seems  to  teach  that  they  are  fallen  angels.  Do  Mr.  Inger- 
soll and  his  school  deny  the  existence  in  our  world  of 


250  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

these  evils  and  facts?  Well,  if  they  are  present  and  are 
confronting  us  every  hour  with  fearful  consequences  to 
humanity,  will  he  please  tell  the  world  how  they  came 
here  in  such  fearful  numbers  and  results?  Are  these  facts 
without  a  cause?  Do  they  not  imply  intelligent  and  re- 
sponsible agents?  If  he  replies  that  no  evil  spirits  exist 
outside  of  man  himself,  as  connected  with  evil  acts,  then 
it  follows  that  men  are  devils  incarnate  and  in  fearful 
numbers.  If  such  evil  acts  as  mentioned  make  a  devil 
men  are  devils,  or  are  possessed  of  some  evil  spirits  that 
lead  them  to  these  evil  deeds.  There  must  be  some  intelli- 
gent, adequate  cause  to  produce  such  results.  It  may  not 
be  very  complimentary  to  mankind  to  be  called  devils; 
but  if  they  commit  acts  suitable  to  these  "Satanic  beings" 
they  will  have  to  accept  the  designation.  The  Colonel 
and  his  friends  must  accept  this  latter  view,  or  that  of 
the  New  Testament  account  of  the  introduction  of  moral 
evil  in  our  world.  He  can  have  his  choice.  "Can  any- 
thing be  more  absurd  ?"  We  think  there  can  be.  This  is 
infinitely  more  absurd — for  a  man  like  Mr.  Ingersoll  to 
live  in  this  world  and  inferentially  deny  the  existence 
of  moral  evil,  and  that  nobody  produced  it  or  is  respon- 
sible for  it.  We  prefer  the  New  Testament  view  greatly 
to  his  absurd  theory  of  moral  evil.  And  we  prefer  greatly 
the  New  Testament  scheme  for  its  cure  to  his  philosophy. 
One  thing  is  very  apparent  and  well  established  among 
men — that  they  are  greatly  influenced  for  good  or  evil 
by  their  companions  and  associates,  especially  if  their 
associates  are  smarter  than  they.  It  does  not  appear 
absurd  to  a  very  large  class  of  intelligent  beings  in  the 
universe,  besides  the  inhabitants  of  our  little  world,  and 
if  mind  or  spirit  is  superior  to  matter  that  they  might  be 
able  to  communicate  with  each  other,  and  yet  have  no 
sympathy  with  the  doctrine  of  modern  spiritualism.  Please 
note  how  the  Colonel  dismisses  this  part  of  his  clever 
essay.  "Of  course  it  is  the  business  of  the  principals  of 
colleges,  as  well  as  of  bishops,  cardinals,  popes,  priests, 
and  clergymen,  to  insist  upon  the  existence  of  evil  spirits. 
All  these  gentlemen  are  employed  to  counteract  the  influ- 


THE  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL.  251 

ence  of  these  supposed  demons.  Why  should  they  take  the 
bread  out  of  their  own  mouths  ?  Is  it  to  be  expected  that 
they  will  unfrock  themselves?"  This  is  a  small  piece 
of  manly  generosity  and  magnanimity  (?)  that  ought  to 
forever  immortalize  Mr.  Ingersoll  as  a  fair-minded  de- 
bater. It  certainly  speaks  eloquently  for  the  cause  (?) 
of  which  he  regards  himself  as  the  chief  champion  and 
defender.  I  am,  and  I  am  not  surprised  at  his  methods. 
One  word  in  conclusion.  He  passes  a  high  compliment 
on  Professor  Huxley.  He  was  a  long  time  reaching  the 
distinguished  Professor.  The  title  of  the  paper  would 
have  led  the  reader  to  infer  that  Mr.  Huxley  would  have 
figured  more  largely  than  he  did,  but  the  Colonel  could 
not  forbear  to  miss  the  opportunity  of  spending  most  of 
his  time  and  space  in  the  enjoyable  work  of  belaboring 
Christianity  and  the  clergy.  His  principal  reference  to 
the  Professor  was  that  his  article  in  a  certain  magazine 
was  very  fine,  and  he  expressed  a  quiet  regret  that  the 
Professor  and  Frederick  Harrison  did  not  agree  about 
the  positive  philosophy  of  Augustus  Comte.  He  did 
mention,  however,  that  agnostics  "have  ceased  to  inquire 
into  the  origin  of  things."  If  so,  it  is  within  a  few 
months.  I  am  sorry  to  have  to  contradict  the  Colonel 
again  before  I  close.  Mr.  Ingersoll  must  know,  if  he  is 
well  read,  that  there  is  not  a  prominent  agnostic  or  infidel 
that  is  not  trying  to  account  for  the  origin  of  man  and 
living  animals,  either  by  "spontaneous  generation"  or 
"natural  selection."  Professor  Huxley  has  been  at  this 
business  for  years,  and  is  at  it  now  if  he  is  not  dead  and 
he  is  an  agnostic ;  so  are  Professors  Tyndall  and  Spencer, 
and  they  are  agnostics.  Mr.  Darwin  was  at  it  up  to  the 
day  of  his  death.  I  do  not  fault  them  for  it;  but  I  do  not 
want  the  Colonel  to  misrepresent  them,  especially  Pro- 
fessor Huxley,  after  slighting  him  so  in  this  last  article. 
Some  agnostics,  who  put  on  an  air  of  modesty  and  say 
when  certain  questions  are  at  the  front,  "I  do  not  know," 
are  the  most  dogmatic  and  positive  about  things  that  are 
highly  improbable,  and  then  about  other  things  that  are 
highly  probable  they  modestly  say,  "I  do  not  know."    This 


252  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

is  notably  so  with  Professor  Huxley,  the  most  eminent  of 
living  agnostics.  He  takes  the  ground  that  modern  evo- 
lution, as  taught  by  Darwin  and  Ernst  Hackel  and 
himself,  is  as  demonstrably  proved  "as  the  Copernican 
system  of  the  universe,"  while  most  evolutionists,  and 
among  them  Charles  Darwin,  the  father  of  the  theory, 
only  claim  a  high  degree  of  probability  for  it.  Why  do 
not  these  agnostics  act  consistently,  and  say  they  do  not 
know  the  origin  of  man?  Why  does  not  Mr.  Ingersoll 
say,  "I  do  not  know  whether  the  apostles  wrote  the  gos- 
pels or  not.  I  do  not  know  whether  Christ  performed  the 
miracles  recorded  or  not."  He  is  not  satisfied  with  leaving 
the  matter  on  purely  agnostic  grounds,  but  says  he  knows 
Christ  never  did  cure  the  sick  or  blind  or  lame  or  raise 
the  dead.  You  see,  candid  reader,  how  positive  he  can 
be  about  things  that  he  never  saw  or  did  himself.  He  is 
certain  that  no  one  ever  saw  or  did  things  that  he  and  his 
agnostic  brethren  have  not  seen  or  done.  Everything  must 
be  verified  before  they  will  believe.  If  you  ever  visited 
Africa  or  Iceland  you  must  "verify"  it,  because  most  people 
never  saw  these  countries  and  never  will.  Livingstone  is 
dead,  and  what  he  recorded  may  be  all  a  myth,  because 
"many  men  are  mistaken."  Stanley  may  never  return  to 
verify  his  travels,  and  he  could  not  verify  them  for  any 
one  but  himself  anyway;  so  the  Colonel  and  his  school 
will  be  compelled  to  verify  it  for  themselves  or  accept 
their  testimony  about  the  Dark  Continent,  and  I  suspect 
they  will  conclude  to  accept  what  Stanley  and  Bishop 
Taylor  say  about  it,  rather  than  go  out  as  missionaries  to 
propagate  agnosticism  among  the  natives,  lest  they  become 
poisoned  with  the  leaven  of  Christianity  by  Taylor  and 
others. 

I  can  not  close  without  a  single  reference  to  Mr.  Inger- 
soll's  present  attitude  to  Christianity  as  foreshadowed  in 
this  late  article  in  the  North  American  Review.  I  think 
it  would  be  difficult,  from  most  of  his  lectures  and  written 
articles  for  a  few  years  past,  not  to  consider  him  an  avowed 
atheist;  but  in  this  late  paper  he  gives  evidence  of  a 
marked  change.    From  one  or  two  paragraphs  it  is  appa- 


THE  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL.  253 

rent  that  in  his  religious  evolution  he  is  hard  by  the  bor- 
ders of  modern  Unitarianism.  He  is  either  nearing  them, 
or  they  are  approaching  agnosticism.  Let  me  quote  (from 
page  410  of  North  American  Review  for  April,  1889)  :  "If 
one  denies  the  existence  of  devils,  does  he  for  that  reason 
cease  to  believe  in  Jesus  Christ?  Is  it  not  possible  to 
imagine  that  a  great  and  tender  soul  living  in  Palestine 
nearly  twenty  centuries  ago  was  misunderstood?  Is  it 
not  within  the  realm  of  the  possible  that  His  words  have 
been  inaccurately  reported?  Is  it  not  within  the  range 
of  the  probable  that  legend  and  rumor  and  ignorance  and 
zeal  have  deformed  His  life  and  belittled  His  character?" 
Now  this  is  orthodox  Unitarianism  of  to-day.  No  man  can 
read  their  current  theology  now  or  hear  their  ministers 
preach,  without  recognizing  that  the  Colonel  has  either 
been  reading  or  sitting  under  their  preaching  of  late.  I 
am  glad  of  it.  I  think  he  gives  signs  of  return  from  his 
long  wanderings.  I  shall  not  be  greatly  surprised  to  hear 
of  him  filling  some  Unitarian  pulpit  soon,  and  not  much 
more  surprised  to  hear  of  his  becoming  a  liberal  orthodox 
preacher  before  he  dies.  The  world  moves !  There  are 
wonderful  undercurrents  of  religious  thought  about  Christ 
and  His  place  in  creation  and  the  redemption  of  this 
world. 

EVOLUTION. 

I  have  been  requested  by  a  number  of  gentlemen  of  this  city  to  give 
a  few  lectures  on  Evolution,  in  view  of  the  interest  recently  awakened 
on  this  subject.  I  propose  to  discuss,  in  a  general  way,  the  much  lauded 
theory  of  Modern  Evolution,  and  show  its  utter  fallaciousness  as  taught 
by  its  leading  authors.  Under  the  auspices  of  the  Young  Men's  Chris- 
tian Association. 

I. 

As  THE  subject  is  somewhat  abstruse  and  burdened 
with  a  peculiar  nomenclature,  I  have  concluded,  for  the 
sake  of  as  much  brevity  and  clearness  as  possible,  to  com- 
mit my  lectures  to  paper,  which  I  know  will  in  some 
measure  lessen  their  interest.  I  also  do  so  that  I  may 
not  be  falsely  reported.  Your  indulgence  and  candid  hear- 
ing are  craved.    As  preliminary  to  this  discussion  it  may 


254  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

be  pertinent  to  call  attention  to  the  distinguished  authors 
who  have  originated  the  idea,  and  are  advocating  its  claims 
on  the  credulity  of  this  age.  Charles  Darwin  may  right- 
fully be  regarded  as  the  father  of  modern  Evolution,  so 
evidently  so  is  this  that  the  theory  has  earned  the  name 
of  "The  Darwinian  Theory."  He  is  the  author  of  the 
following  works:  "Origin  of  Species,"  "The  Descent  of 
Man,"  "Animals  and  Plants,"  and  some  others  of  minor 
importance.  Another  distinguished  author  on  Evolution, 
and  the  most  eminent  disciple  of  Darwin,  is  E.  Hackel, 
Professor  of  Natural  History  in  the  University  of  Jena. 
He  is  the  author  of  the  following  large  works :  "History 
of  Creation"  and  "The  Evolution  of  Man;"  and  Professor 
Huxley,  the  author  of  "Elementary  Physiology"  and  sun- 
dry lectures,  all  aiming  to  establish  Evolution.  These  are 
considered  to  be  the  ablest  exponents  of  the  system.  I 
shall  therefore  pay  my  principal  respects  to  them.  I  desire 
to  say  that  these  gentlemen  have  made  many  valuable 
contributions  to  science,  and  the  world  is  largely  indebted 
to  them  for  their  indefatigable  labors;  but  that  their 
researches  have  established  the  Dogma  of  Evolution  as 
taught  by  them  with  such  persistent  zeal  the  majority  of 
intelligent  and  cultured  men  of  this  age  do  not  at  all  be- 
lieve, and  some  of  these  scientists  teach  that  all  the  living 
species  of  men  and  animals  have  come  into  being  by  spon- 
taneous generation  without  the  aid  of  creative  power,  pur- 
pose, or  plan.  This  is  HackeFs  theory,  and  favored  by 
Huxley.  The  other  theory,  differing  from  this,  is  that 
the  first  being  or  few  specimens  of  a  very  low  order  were 
the  result  of  creative  power,  as  a  starter  of  all  living 
beings,  animals  and  men,  and  ever  since  that  there  has 
been  no  supervising  plan  of  a  superior  intelligence.  The 
work  has  all  been  accomplished  by  blind  law,  under  the 
law  of  "natural  selection,"  or  "The  Survival  of  the  Fit- 
est."  In  a  word,  that  the  race  of  men  have  come  down  to 
their  present  high  estate  through  a  long  line  of  ancestors, 
beginning  with  unorganized  Protoplasm,  or  Bathybius,  or 
Bioplasm,  or  Moneron,  running  -through  a  long  line  of 
ganoids,  or  fishes,  tortoises,  horses,  dogs,  monkeys,  and 


EVOLUTION.  255 

apes,  our  nearest  living  ancestor.  This  is  Darwinianism. 
You  laugh,  gentlemen,  but  this  they  proclaim  with  all 
soberness,  and  I  will  not  say  insincerity.  These  same 
great  scientists  do  thus  declare  without  a  blush,  so  far  as 
their  written  works  indicate.  I  think  it  was  Cicero  who 
said:  "He  did  not  see  how  two  jugglers  could  look  each 
other  in  the  face  without  laughing !" 

A  few  words  about  the  terms  employed  in  these  books 
and  lectures.  Protoplasm  literally  means  first  made;  it  is 
a  jelly-like  substance  supposed  to  contain  life;  Bioplasm 
means  first  life,  or  the  beginning  of  life,  and  is  similar  to 
Protoplasm;  Bathybius  is  a  Greek  word,  meaning  deep 
sea.  Mr.  Huxley,  the  discoverer,  says  this  about  it: 
"Bathybius  is  a  vast  sheet  of  living  matter  enveloping  the 
whole  earth  beneath  the  seas."  In  honor  of  Professor 
Hackel  he  named  it  "Bathybius  Hackelu."  This  deep  sea 
ooze  he  made  the  bridge  between  the  organic  and  inorganic 
world.  The  great  infidel,  Strauss,  went  into  ecstasies  over 
this  supposed  discovery,  and  used  it  as  his  strongest  argu- 
ment against  miracles  or  the  supernatural.  Of  course 
Professor  Hackel  applauded  this  discovery,  because  of  the 
vast  issues  that  were  dependent  upon  it.  But  the  greatest 
living  physiologists  like  Dr.  Carpenter  and  Lionel  Beale 
rejected  Huxley's  testimony  as  a  matter  of  fact.  Dr. 
Wallich,  1869,  presented  evidence  that  this  sea  ooze,  or 
Bathybius,  has  nothing  in  it  to  confirm  Huxley's  assump- 
tions, and  recent  deep  sea  soundings  have  given  their  ver- 
dict against  Mr.  Huxley's  pretensions;  and  finally,  in  the 
American  Journal  of  Science  and  Arts,  you  will  find  (Oct. 
1877,  pp.  267,  268)  the  last  concession  that  this  celebrated 
Bathybius  contains  nothing  but  "the  sulphate  of  lime !" 
Poor  Strauss  did  not  live  long  enough  to  hear  Professor 
Huxley  recant.  His  Bathybius  has  been  the  subject  of 
ridicule  and  jest  among  literary  and  scientific  men  for 
several  years  last  past.  He  has  been  very  reticent  in  his 
recent  lectures  on  the  subject  of  Bathybius  and  its  sisters, 
Protoplasm  and  Moneron,  of  other  evolutionists.  It  has 
been  remarked  in  his  New  York  lectures  that  he  was 
very  shy  about  touching  the  main  objection  to  evolution; 


256  STORY  OF  MY  LIFB. 

viz.,  bridging  the  immense  chasm  between  living  and  not 
living  matter,  his  first  bridge  utterly  broke  down  under 
its  own  absurdity  and  want  of  scientific  evidence.  Spon- 
taneous generation  is  in  the  same  category  of  assumptions, 
as  we  will  see  further  on. 

The  word  Moneron,  employed  so  much  by  Professor 
Hackel,  is  best  explained  by  him.  He  says :  "The  monera 
are  the  simplest  of  all  known  organisms,  being  mere  lumps 
of  pure  albumen,  without  organs  or  heterogeneous  parts," 
and  probably  not  larger  than  a  pin's  head  and  living  at 
the  bottom  of  the  ocean,  where  Huxley  discovered  his 
Bathybius. 

To  show  you  that  I  have  not  overstated  nor  misstated 
the  teachings  of  these  gentlemen,  I  quote:  Mr.  Darwin 
says  (Origin  of  Species,  pp.  420,  425,  428)  :  "There  is  a 
grandeur  in  his  view  [evolution]  of  life,  with  its  several 
powers,  having  been  originally  breathed  by  the  Creator 
into  a  few  forms  or  into  one."  "The  similar  framework 
of  bones  in  the  hand  of  a  man,  wing  of  a  bat,  fin  of  a 
porpoise,  and  leg  of  a  horse,  .  .  .  and  innumerable 
other  such  facts  at  once  explain  themselves  on  the  theory 
of  descent  with  slow  and  successive  modifications."  "In 
regard  to  the  members  of  each  great  kingdom,  such  as 
vertebrata,  articulata,  etc.,  we  have  distinct  evidence  .  .  . 
that  within  each  kingdom  all  the  members  are  descended 
from  a  single  progenitor."  "All  the  living  forms  of  life 
are  the  lineal  descendants  of  those  which  lived  long  before 
the  Cambrian  Epoch." 

Professor  Hackel  (History  of  Creation,  Vol.  I,  pp.  48, 
75)  says:  "But  a  truly  natural  and  consistent  view  of 
organisms  can  assume  no  supernatural  act  of  creation  for 
even  those  simplest  original  forms,  but  only  a  coming  into 
existence  by  spontaneous  generation.  From  Darwin's 
view  of  the  nature  of  species  we  arrive  therefore  at  the 
natural  theory  of  development."  "The  fundamental  idea 
which  must  necessarily  lie  at  the  bottom  of  all  natural 
theories  of  development  is  that  of  a  gradual  development 
of  all  (even  the  most  perfect)  organisms  out  of  a  single 
or  out  of  a  very  few  quite  simple  and  quite  imperfect 


BVOLUTION.  257 

original  beings  which  came  into  existence  not  by  super- 
natural creation,  but  by  spontaneous  generation  or  archi- 
gony  out  of  inorganic  matter." 

I  now  propose  to  examine  these  arguments  and  assump- 
tions of  the  master  spirits  of  modern  Evolution,  and  show 
that  their  theories  are  not  supported  by  well  demonstrated 
facts.  Their  pretended  facts  are  largely  mere  assump- 
tions; in  other  words,  "not  proven."  They  assume  that 
all  organisms  of  living  animals  and  men  came  "from  a 
single  or  a  few  quite  simple  and  imperfect  beings."  Now 
in  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  how  can  they  so  positively 
assert  this?  This,  according  to  their  theory  of  the  early 
condition  of  the  world  and  its  slow  development,  must 
have  occurred  one  hundred  million  of  years  ago.  Who 
were  there  that  are  competent  to  testify?  Is  Hackel's 
Moneron  or  Huxley's  Bathybius  the  witness  they  bring 
on  to  the  stand?  We  deny  the  assumption,  and  demand 
demonstrative  proof.  If  Professor  Hackel  is  to  be  relied 
on,  he  finds  these  monera  still  in  existence  through  his 
friend,  the  microscope.  This  race  of  beings  is  quite  a 
hundred  millions  of  years  old,  and  are  likely  to  survive 
their  posterity  and  us,  his  lineal  descendants.  How  does 
this  tally  with  Mr.  Darwin's  "survival  of  the  fittest?" 
In  this  struggle  for  existence  the  monera  promise  well  to 
win  the  day.  They  ought,  in  accordance  with  this  fine- 
spun theory,  to  have  been  extinct  long  ages  ago;  but  they 
are  lively  witnesses  against  modern  Evolution.  It  is  a 
clear  case  of  the  oldest  outliving  all  his  vast  posterity, 
and  overthrowing  the  very  dogma  it  was  intended  to  estab- 
lish !  One  of  the  promises  I  made  some  weeks  since,  was 
that  I  would  use  the  chief  weapons  of  my  adversaries  to 
demolish  their  theory. 

I  quote  again  from  Professor  Hackel  (History  of  Cre- 
ation, Vol.  I,  pp.  185,  186,  and  345)  :  "Of  still  greater, 
nay,  the  very  greatest  importance  to  the  hypothesis  of 
spontaneous  generation  are  finally,  the  exceedingly  re- 
markable Monera,  those  creatures  which  we  have  already  so 
frequently  mentioned,  and  which  are  not  only  the  simplest 
of  all  observed  organisms,  but  even  the  simplest  of  all  im- 

17 


258  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

aginable  organisms.  Through  the  discovery  of  these  organ- 
isms, which  are  of  the  utmost  importance,  the  supposition 
of  a  spontaneous  generation  loses  most  of  its  difficulties." 

"The  whole  body  of  these  most  simple  of  all  organ- 
isms— a  semi  fluid,  a  formless  and  simple  lump  of  albu- 
men, consists  in  fact  of  only  a  single  chemical  combination. 
Formerly,  when  the  doctrine  of  spontaneous  generation 
was  advocated,  it  failed  at  once  of  adherents  on  account 
of  the  composite  structure  of  the  simplest  organisms  then 
knowp.  It  is  only  since  we  have  discovered  the  exceed- 
ingly important  Monera,  with  organisms  not  in  any  way 
built  up  of  distinct  organs,  but  which  consist  solely  of  a 
single  chemical  combination,  and  yet  grow,  nourish,  and 
propagate  themselves,  that  this  great  difficulty  has  been 
removed,  and  the  hypothesis  of  spontaneous  generation 
has  gained  a  degree  of  probability  which  entitles  it  to 
fill  up  the  gap  existing  between  Kant's  Cosmogony  and 
Lamark's  Theory  of  Descent." 

"Only  such  homogeneous  organisms  as  are  yet  not 
differentiated  and  are  similar  to  the  inorganic  crystals, 
in  being  homogeneously  composed  of  one  simple  substance, 
could  arise  by  spontaneous  generation  and  could  become 
the  primeval  parents  of  all  other  organisms." 

"When  the  Moneron  moves  itself  there  are  formed  on 
the  upper  surface  of  the  little  mucous  globule  shapeless 
finger-like  processes,  or  very  fine  radiated  threads.  These 
are  the  so-called  false  feet,  or  pseudopodia." 

I  desire  to  give  it  as  my  candid  opinion  that  it  would 
be  difficult  to  find  in  a  scientific  work  of  this  or  any  other 
age  so  many  contradictions  and  careless  statements  in  the 
same  number  of  words.  Let  us  analyze  this  remarkable 
deliverance  of  the  first  Evolutionist  of  our  times,  and  see 
if  my  judgment  is  correct. 

He  tells  us  that  the  Monera  "are  exceedingly  remark- 
able !"  and  that  they  are  of  "the  very  greatest  importance" 
to  his  hypothesis  of  spontaneous  generation,  and  this  he 
is  determined  you  shall  not  forget.  They  are  without 
doubt  exceedingly  remarkable ! '  "They  are  the  simplest 
of  all  observed  organisms;  nay,  they  are  the  simplest  of 


EVOLUTION.  259 

all  imaginable  organisms !"  They  are  declared  in  one 
sentence  to  be  organs,  and  in  the  next  that  if  they  have 
organs  "all  trace  of  organization,  all  distinction  of  heter- 
ogeneous parts  is  still  wanting  in  them;"  and  yet  he 
assures  you  that  while  there  is  still  no  trace  of  organs  to 
be  seen,  or  "heterogeneous  parts,"  that  "all  the  vital  phe- 
nomena (or  functions)  are  performed  by  one  and  the  same 
heterogeneous  and  formless  matter."  In  the  very  next 
paragraph  he  tells  you  that  the  organless  moneron,  "this 
exceedingly  remarkable  moneron,"  "which  consists  solely 
of  a  single  chemical  combination,"  is  nothing  but  "a  form- 
less and  simple  lump  of  albumen,  similar  to  the  inorganic 
crystal"  (I  use  his  very  language),  and  what  is  the  most 
remarkable  of  all  his  statements  about  this  "exceedingly 
remarkable"  little  animal  is,  that  it  eats  and  grows  and 
has  false  feet  or  "pseudopodia,"  and  "moves  itself,"  and 
on  the  upper  surface  of  the  little  mucous  globule  shape- 
less finger-like  processes  or  very  fine  radiated  threads 
are  seen,  which  are  the  so-called  false  feet.  Now  it  has 
shapeless  finger-like  processes  or  fine  radiated  threads; 
and  now  it  has  no  organs  that  are  traceable !  How  are 
these  contradictory  assertions  to  be  reconciled?  He  tells 
us  it  is  a  "simple  lump  of  albumen"  one  moment,  similar 
to  inorganic  crystal,  and  the  next  that  it  has  these  heter- 
ogeneous parts  or  pseudopodia  or  radiated  fingers  and 
moves  itself.  He  talks  about  its  being  "a  chemical  combi- 
nation of  a  single  substance."  How  can  a  thing  be  a 
combination  of  only  one  substance?  How  can  any  living 
creature  eat  and  grow  and  move  itself  without  organs 
of  motion  and  assimilation?  Such  a  proposition  is  too 
absurd  to  deserve  a  serious  reply.  Now  what  does  all  this 
minute  description  of  this  moneron  by  the  Professor 
mean?  He  is  very  desirous  of  belittling  this  very  little 
pelagic  animal  to  show  that  it  was  very  nearly  without 
organs,  that  he  might  make  the  superficial  reader  believe 
that  an  animal  that  had  no  organism,  or  next  to  none, 
might  bridge  the  immense  chasm  between  "the  living 
and  the  not  living,"  that  he  was  betrayed  into  all  this 
supreme  nonsense.    I  doubt  not  that  his  Moneron  is  a  real 


26o  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

living  being  with  a  perfect  organism,  whether  the  micro- 
scope shows  it  distinctly  or  not.  I  doubt  not  that  it  has 
nerves  and  muscles  and  eyes  if  it  needs  them,  and  fingers 
or  pseudopodia,  and  has  a  will  to  control  its  movements, 
and  organs  of  digestion  if  it  eats  and  grows.  I  do  not 
believe  that  any  of  God's  works  are  defective,  however 
small.  I  will  let  you  into  the  secret,  or  rather  Professor 
Hackel  lets  us  into  the  secret  of  this  attempt  to  belittle 
God's  work  in  these  significant  words,  repeated  several 
times  with  emphasis :  "Of  the  very  greatest  importance  to 
the  hypothesis  of  spontaneous  generation,"  "of  the  utmost 
importance,"  "the  exceedingly  important  Monera,"  "are 
of  the  utmost  importance  to  the  theory  of  the  first  origin 
of  life;"  that  is  to  say,  if  he  fails  to  establish  spontaneous 
generation  through  this  formless,  simple  lump  of  albumen, 
without  organs,  that  are  traceable  by  the  microscope,  then 
his  cause  is  lost.  You  see  they  are  so  insignificant,  and 
yet  so  important !  Performing  all  the  functions  of  life 
without  anything  to  do  it  with !  Shades  of  Aristotle, 
Bacon,  and  Lock,  think  of  it !  What  is  this  scientific  age 
coming  to?  Is  that  the  style  of  reasoning  taught  in  the 
University  of  Jena? 

But  he  gives  away  his  theory  in  the  following  sentence, 
"The  supposition  of  spontaneous  generation  loses  most 
of  its  difficulties,"  by  accepting  his  lame  accounts  of  this 
Moneron.  Then  he  admits  that  spontaneous  generation 
"has  its  difficulties."  On  the  "supposition !"  But  this  age 
does  not  take  things  on  supposition.  It  must  be  demon- 
strative proof.  Nothing  short  of  rigid  induction,  not  even 
deduction,  will  do,  much  less  inferential  suppositions  and 
assumptions. 

But  I  must  show  you  that  he  flatly  contradicts  himself. 
He,  in  the  paragraph  just  quoted,  says  the  moneron  is  "a 
simple  lump  of  albumen,"  consisting  "of  one  single  chem- 
ical combination,"  and  then  on  page  327,  Vol.  I,  History 
of  Creation,  we  have  this:  "In  all  living  bodies  without 
(this  includes  the  Moneron)  exception  there  is  a  certain 
quantity  of  water  combined  in  a  peculiar  manner  with 
solid  matter.    All  animals  and  plants,  in  fact  all  organisms. 


EVOLUTION.  261 

consist  in  great  measure  of  fluid  water,  which  combines 
in  a  peculiar  manner  with  other  substances."  Now  his 
moneron  is  either  an  animal  with  organs  and  "other  sub- 
stances" besides  simple  albumen,  or  this  last  definition  is 
defective.  He  not  only  contradicts  himself  in  his  defi- 
nition of  his  exceedingly  remarkable  Moneron;  but  he 
contradicts  his  great  master,  Mr.  Darwin.  Darwin,  in 
his  book  on  "Animals  and  Plants,"  page  483,  Vol.  I,  says : 
"We  can  not  fathom  the  marvelous  complexity  of  an 
organic  being;  but  on  the  hypothesis  here  advanced  (pan- 
genesis) this  complexity  is  much  increased.  Each  living 
creature  must  be  looked  at  as  a  microcosm,  formed  by  a 
host  of  self-propagating  organisms  inconceivably  minute." 
"Each  living  creature,"  according  to  this  great  expounder 
of  Evolution,  "is  a  "microcosm" — a  little  world.  That 
hiatus  can  never  be  spanned  by  his  Moneron,  which  he 
confesses  is  essential  to  his  hypothesis  of  spontaneous 
generation. 

But  Professor  Hackel  has  confessed  that  spontaneous 
generation,  which  was  possible  at  that  early  period,  is  not 
possible  now.  He  says  (History  of  Creation,  Vol.  I,  pp. 
342,  343)  :  "The  impossibility  of  such  a  process  (spontane- 
ous generation)  can  in  fact  never  be  proved.  For  how 
can  we  know  that  in  remote  primeval  times  there  did  not 
exist  conditions  quite  different  from  those  at  present  ob- 
taining, and  which  may  have  rendered  spontaneous  gener- 
ation possible?  "Think  only  of  the  fact  that  enormous 
masses  of  carbon,  which  we  now  find  deposited  in  the 
primary  coal  mountains,"  etc.,  "at  that  time  under  con- 
ditions quite  different  from  those  of  to-day,  a  spontaneous 
generation,  which  now  is  perhaps  no  longer  possible,  may 
have  taken  place"  "Indeed,  we  can  even  positively  and 
with  full  assurance  maintain  that  the  general  conditions 
of  life  in  primeval  times  must  have  been  entirely  different 
from  those  of  the  present  time."  If  it  is  impossible  now, 
as  he  here  admits,  the  strong  presumption  is  that  it  was 
impossible  then.  Nay,  I  will  prove  to  you  in  a  few 
moments  that  it  was  impossible  then  as  now.  But  hear  the 
Professor !     He  says  "the  impossibility  of  spontaneous 


262  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

generation  can  never  be  proved"  by  his  opponents.  This 
is  enough  to  cause  Aristotle,  Whately,  and  Jevons  to  turn 
in  their  graves.  He  calls  on  us  to  prove  a  negative ! 
Gentlemen,  the  onus  probandi,  or  burden  of  proof,  is  on 
them.  Can  they  prove  that  it  did  take  place,  as  they  as- 
sume? What  do  evolutionists  certainly  know  about  the 
conditions  of  the  world  in  primeval  times?  Professor 
Hackel  asks,  "How  can  we  know?"  Sure  enough,  how 
can  they  know  that  "the  conditions  were  entirely  differ- 
ent" from  "what  they  are  now?"  He  here  "even  posi- 
tively" asserts  that  they  must  have  been  different;  nay, 
"entirely  different."  Yes,  these  evolutionists  are  capable 
of  asserting  "positively"  and  "with  full  assurance"  what 
never  has  nor  can  be  proved  by  scientific  demonstration ! 
Their  assurance  is  enormous !  This  is  a  fair  specimen 
of  their  logic  and  dogmatism,  and  if  you  do  not  accept 
their  assumptions  without  any  questionings  you  will  be 
charged  "with  camping  with  Moses"  and  "being  a  century 
behind  your  age,"  and  all  that.  I  wonder  if  this  is  a  speci- 
men of  the  logic  taught  in  the  University  of  Jena,  where 
Mr.  Hackel  is  a  distinguished  professor?  But  I  prom- 
ised to  give  you  demonstrable  proof  that  the  conditions  of 
life  were  not  "different  in  primeval  times"  from  what  they 
are  now,  so  as  to  make  spontaneous  generation  possible 
or  even  probable.  In  the  argument  we  are  not  called  on 
to  prove  his  absurd  negative;  but  our  position  is  so  solid 
and  invulnerable  that  we  can  afford  to  prove  his  negative, 
and  we  will  make  Professor  Hackel  one  of  the  witnesses 
to  overthrow  his  own  theory.  I  quote  (History  of  Cre- 
ation, Vol.  II,  p.  9)  :  "The  first  and  longest  division  of  the 
organic  history  of  the  earth  is  formed  by  the  primeval 
epoch  of  the  tangled  forests.  It  comprises  the  immense 
period  from  the  first  spontaneous  generation,  from  the 
origin  of  the  first  terrestrial  organism  to  the  end  of  the 
Silurian  system  of  deposits.  During  the  immeasurable 
space  of  time,  which  in  all  probability  was  much  longer 
than  all  the  other  four  epochs  taken  together,  the  three 
most  extensive  of  all  the  Neptunic  systems  of  strata  were 
deposited." 


EVOLUTION.  263 

Now,  gentlemen,  get  down  your  geologies,  Hitchcock's 
and  Dana's,  and  any  other  text-book  of  repute,  and  look 
into  this  remarkable  assumption  of  Professor  Hackel.  He 
here  assumes,  not  proves,  that  the  longest  and  first  division 
of  the  organic  history  of  the  earth  is  formed  "by  the  era 
of  the  tangled  forests,"  and  that  this  epoch  was  probably 
"much  longer  than  all  the  other  four  epochs  taken  to- 
gether." Then  the  Devonian  intervened  before  the  Car- 
boniferous era  began.  Do  not  omit  to  note,  that  at  least 
fifty  millions  of  years  (at  the  most  moderate  estimate  of 
these  scientists)  intervened  between  the  era  of  the  tangled 
forests  and  the  Carboniferous  era.  I  call  on  you,  gentle- 
men, to  note  here  especially  that  Professor  Hackel,  the 
most  illustrious  evolutionist  after  Charles  Darwin,  has 
told  you  that  "spontaneous  generation"  was  rendered  pos- 
sible and  highly  probable  "by  the  enormous  masses  of 
carbon"  in  the  carbon  age.  But  here  he  emphatically  tells 
us  that  spontaneous  generation  took  place  hundreds  of 
millions  of  years  before  the  Corboniferous  era  began,  when 
he  says  the  era  of  tangled  forests  "comprises  the  immense 
period  from  the  first  spontaneous  generation,  from  the 
origin  of  the  first  terrestrial  organism  to  the  end  of  the 
Silurian  system  of  deposits."  Thus  he  is  guilty  of  the 
blunder  of  first  assuming  that  spontaneous  generation  oc- 
curred in  the  carbon  age,  when  the  conditions  were  prob- 
ably favorable,  and  then  asserting  that  it  took  place  away 
back  millions  of  years,  before  there  was  any  carbon.  What 
proof,  I  ask,  has  this  prententious  scientist  for  asserting 
that  there  was  any  carbon  as  far  back  as  the  Devonian 
age,  to  say  nothing  of  the  Laurentian  era  ?  There  are  no 
coal  deposits  in  those  strata  to  prove  his  assumption.  They 
explode  his  theory  of  spontaneous  generation  by  carbon 
completely.  On  the  contrary,  we  have  positive  evidence 
of  life  in  the  Devonian  and  Laurentian  ages,  seen  in  the 
remains  of  fishes  such  as  Ganoids  and  Mollusks,  and  that 
too  without  any  change  in  their  organic  structures.  If 
we  prove  this  to  our  evolution  friends  by  their  greatest 
master,  Mr.  Darwin,  they  ought  to  be  convinced  that 
Hackel's  theory  of  spontaneous  generation  is  not  only  self- 


264  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

contradictory,  but  utterly  without  foundation.  Hear  Mr. 
Darwin  (Origin  of  Species,  pp.  293,  294)  :  "Some  groups 
[of  mollusks],  as  we  have  seen,  have  endured  from  the 
earliest  known  dawn  of  life  to  the  present  day."  "In 
the  genus  lingula,  for  instance,  the  species  which  have 
successively  appeared  at  all  ages  must  have  been  connected 
by  an  unbroken  series  of  generations  from  the  lowest 
Silurian  stratum  to  the  present  day."  Thus  we  have 
proved  by  the  facts  of  geology  and  the  concessions  of  the 
first  evolutionists  of  the  age,  that  the  conditions  of  life 
were  not  "different  then"  from  what  they  are  now,  seeing 
that  we  have  the  same  animals  now  without  any  change 
of  structure  that  lived  in  those  far  distant  epochs.  If  this 
theory  of  spontaneous  generation  is  not  completely  shiv- 
ered by  these  stubborn  facts,  then  no  additional  proof 
would  convince  those  "who  love  darkness  rather  than 
light."  I  can  not  dispose  of  Professor  Hacker's  exploded 
theory  of  spontaneous  generation  better  than  quoting  from 
an  able  pen  a  short  caricature  of  his  pet  hypothesis:  "If 
living  beings  could  come  into  existence  by  spontaneous 
generation,  why  could  not  carbon?  Besides,  how  does 
he  know  but  that  the  earth  was  visited  by  a  monstrous 
comet  at  the  close  of  the  Devonian  age,  and  that  it  left 
its  carbon  tail,  which  inaugurated  the  coal  period?"  In- 
deed, we  can  positively  and  with  full  assurance  maintain 
that  since  "the  conditions  of  life"  were  "entirely  differ- 
ent" in  those  "primeval  times,"  it  may  have  been  custom- 
ary for  comets  to  visit  the  earth  and  leave  their  tails  as 
a  token  of  friendly  regard,  and  I  can  even  positively  assert 
that  one  immense  tail  was  composed  entirely  of  carbon, 
which  in  time  condensed  into  coal,  inclosing  a  few  speci- 
mens of  vegetation  which  have  successfully  fooled  modern 
geologists,  and  made  them  think  that  the  coal  mountains 
were  of  vegetable  origin !  "The  impossibility  of  such  a 
process  can,  in  fact,  never  be  proved,"  and  of  course  it 
must  therefore  be  accepted  as  science !  I  also  "positively 
maintain,"  and  "with  full  assurance,"  that  diamonds,  which 
are  composed  of  pure  carbon,  originated  in  that  way, 
owing  their  spontaneous  generation  to  the  tail  of  a  comet ! 


EVOLUTION.  265 

Hackel  can  not  disprove  it,  since  the  "conditions  of  life" 
were  so  "entirely  different  in  those  cometic  times."  If 
Moses  had  ever  been  guilty  of  giving  such  a  puerile  and 
senseless  theory  of  creation  as  this,  he  would  have  been 
classed  with  the  Spokane  Indians,  who  have  a  theory  that 
is  extant  among  them  to  this  day,  that  the  falls  and  water 
power  that  adorn  your  beautiful  city  were  put  there  by 
the  wild  coyotes.  This  superstition  is  about  on  a  par  with 
the  carbon  theory  of  Professor  Hackel.  What  superlative 
nonsense  to  be  dignified  with  the  name  of  science !  I  pro- 
pose to  lend  my  feeble  efforts  to  stamp  out  such  twaddle 
passing  under  the  name  of  the  latest  and  best  thought  of 
the  age.  Professor  Hackel,  who  has  a  remarkable  dis- 
taste for  miracles,  asserts  emphatically  that  there  is  no 
need  of  a  Divine  Being  in  the  creation  of  any  living 
species  or  genus,  but  attributes  the  entire  work  of  creation 
to  the  action  of  blind  law  under  his  theory  of  spontaneous 
generation.  He  says  (for  I  dare  not  make  an  utterance 
in  regard  to  these  scientific  gentlemen  without  quoting 
their  very  words)  in  his  History  of  Creation,  Vol.  I, 
p.  176:  "All  the  different  forms  of  organisms,  which 
people  are  usually  inclined  to  look  upon  as  the  products 
of  creative  power,  acting  for  a  definite  purpose,  we,  ac- 
cording to  the  theory  of  selection,  can  conceive  as  a  neces- 
sary production  of  natural  selection  working  without  a 
purpose."  You  observe  here  that  Professor  Hackel  has 
gone  over  to  the  ground  of  Mr.  Darwin  of  natural  selec- 
tion, which  is  a  tacit  concession  that  his  theory  of  spon- 
taneous generation  might  some  day  break  down,  as  we 
have  seen  it  has  most  signally  done.  Then  if  natural 
selection  is  to  be  adopted  as  it  is  by  a  large  class  of  evo- 
lutionists, there  is  this  serious  obstacle  confronting  him 
and  them  at  the  very  threshold  of  active  being;  namely, 
there  must  be  something  to  select  from  before  selection 
can  take  place,  and  there  must  be  a  large  variety  to  select 
from  to  have  the  fittest  to  survive  the  not  fit,  which  must 
outnumber  greatly  the  fit.  If  that  oft-repeated  formula  of 
Darwin,  "The  survival  of  the  fittest,"  is  worthy  a  place 
in  true  science,  there  must  of  necessity  have  been  a  wide 


266  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

margin  to  select  from  before  natural  selection  could  oper- 
ate. This  rugged  obstacle  has  never  yet  been  surmounted. 
It  is  due  to  Charles  Darwin,  however,  to  say  that  he  ad- 
mits that  there  must  have  been  a  miracle  performed  by  an 
intelligent  First  Cause  to  create  "one  or  a  few  simple 
beings"  to  start  with;  but  this  being  done,  all  the  count- 
less species  of  plants  and  animals  have  been  evolved  with- 
out further  aid  from  the  Creator.  But  most  of  the  leading 
Evolutionists  hold  that  nothing  but  blind  law  has  been 
concerned  in  the  work  of  our  varied  creation.  I  submit 
that  such  a  theory  of  creation  is  a  thousand-fold  more 
miraculous  if  true,  than  that  God  created  all  living  species 
of  plants  and  animals,  including  men,  by  specific  acts 
than  the  theory  of  atheistic  evolution.  This  theory  is 
squarely  in  the  face  of  the  well-established  fact  that 
"there  can  be  no  effect  without  a  cause."  There  can  be 
no  effect  without  an  adequate  cause.  This  law  is  as  true 
and  better  established  than  Newton's  law  of  gravitation. 
No  well-balanced  scientist  of  this  or  any  age  would  dare 
to  openly  assail  this  law  of  cause  and  effect,  though  many 
evolutionists  do  assail  it  indirectly,  inferentially,  and  sub- 
stantially. If  some  traveler  through  Africa  should  come 
upon  the  great  pyramids  and  the  sphinx  without  ever  hav- 
ing heard  of  them,  he  doubtless  would  be  surprised  at  their 
immense  size  and  construction,  with  the  tremendous  and 
ponderuos  blocks  of  stone  piled  one  upon  another  to  the 
height  of  hundreds  of  feet !  If  he  should  investigate  them 
internally  and  witness  the  inscriptions,  hieroglyphics, 
paintings,  and  sarcophagi  with  their  embalmed  mummies, 
his  surprise  and  wonder  would  further  increase.  Suppose 
he  should  sit  down  and  philosophize  thus:  "I  see  these 
ancient  monuments  and  am  struck  with  their  size,  crypts, 
sarcophagi,  and  hieroglyphics,  a  significant  history  of  a 
dead  past.  I  conclude  that  all  this  is  a  result  of  Nature's 
wonderful  operations,  'some  favorable  conditions'  assorted 
by  natural  selection,  'some  peculiar  environment  of  mat- 
ter/ probably  the  result  of  'spontaneous  generation.'  I 
see  in  all  this  'some  promise  and  potency  of  every  form  of 
life,'  some  happy  concurrence  or  chemical  affinity  among 


EVOLUTION.  267 

the  sandstones;  in  a  word,  this  is  a  significant  monument 
of  'the  survival  of  the  fittest.'  "  He  talks  like  an  evolu- 
tionist. While  thus  soliloquizing  some  traveler  or  anti- 
quarian steps  up  and  interviews  him,  and  suggests  that 
probably  some  ancient  people  during  the  times  of  the 
Pharaohs  were  the  authors  of  these  piles;  he  could  aptly 
reply  that  there  were  no  living  witnesses  of  that;  that 
there  were  no  engines  or  machinery  extant  that  could  have 
placed  those  vast  blocks  at  that  elevation !  Therefore  it 
must  be  the  work  of  Nature,  and  has  been  evoluted  from 
some  primary  pattern  that  came  into  existence  through 
the  potency  there  is  in  Natural  law.  Which  is  the  greater 
philosopher  of  the  two,  gentlemen  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury, the  antiquarian  who  concluded  that  the  Egyptians 
reared  them,  or  that  they  came  there  accidentally,  without 
purpose  or  plan,  or  intelligent  agency?  The  cases  are 
as  nearly  analogous  as  is  possible.  In  other  words,  which 
would  be  the  more  striking  miracle,  the  building  these 
pyramids  by  skilled  mechanics,  or  the  doctrines  of  natural 
selection,  without  a  plan  or  "purpose?"  Which  is  the 
greatest  miracle,  think  you;  that  a  personal,  intelligent, 
and  omnipotent  Creator  made  all  the  species  of  living 
beings,  with  their  peculiar  characteristics  and  with  capac- 
ities to  perpetuate  themselves;  or  that  all  these  originated 
from  the  "simple  moneron"  of  Hackel,  or  by  ''natural 
selection"  without  anything  to  select  from  of  Darwin?  It 
is  evidently  a  greater  wonder  to  witness  such  immense 
and  varied  results  from  inadequate  causes,  than  to  suppose 
that  God,  the  great  First  Cause,  created  all  living  tribes 
and  endowed  them  with  capacities  to  perpetuate  their  re- 
spective species,  as  we  now  constantly  witness  they  do, 
and  ever  have  done  since  the  dawn  of  earliest  historic 
times.  Remember  the  well-established  law  that  "every 
effect  must  have  an  adequate  cause."  No  plan  or  purpose 
in  Creation !  Now  if  these  learned  men  would  sit  down 
and  reverently  examine  a  human  hand,  or  an  eye,  or  an 
ear,  they  could  not  fail  to  see  adaptation  of  means  to  an 
end  in  these  marvelous  instruments !  The  relation  of  the 
hand  to  the  necessary  avocations  of  life,  of  the  eye  to  the 


268  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

light,  with  its  delicate  and  perfect  lenses  for  the  refraction 
of  the  rays,  and  the  back  chamber  to  receive  images,  and 
the  consummate  system  of  nerves  to  transmit  these  images 
to  the  sensorum  or  brain;  and  the  ear  and  its  relation  to 
sound,  with  its  exquisite  bones,  caverns,  tubes,  and  drum 
for  the  modification  of  sound !  No  purpose  or  plan  in  all 
this  varied  and  delicate  machinery !  All  the  result  of 
spontaneous  generation  and  natural  selection  under  the 
guidance  of  blind,  unintelligent  law !  This  outmiracles 
all  the  miracles  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  by  a  thou- 
sand-fold !  It  were  as  reasonable  to  suppose ;  nay,  as 
credible,  as  if  a  man  should  accidentally  discover  a  poem 
or  oration  surpassing  in  sublimity  and  beauty  the  Iliad  of 
Homer  or  Webster  written  in  pure  English  on  the  walls 
of  Yosemite,  and  infer  that  they  came  there  by  sponta- 
neous generation  or  natural  selection  without  any  plan  or 
purpose,  as  this  wonderful  world  of  living,  throbbing  in- 
telligences without  the  interposition  of  a  Supreme  intelli- 
gent cause.  Topsy,  when  asked  who  made  her,  replied 
"that  she  just  growed."  Her  philosophy  is  not  excelled 
as  a  rational  theory  by  Hackel,  Huxley,  or  even  Darwin. 
Gentlemen,  it  is  high  time  that  we  get  on  our  knees  before 
a  personal  God,  the  first  and  adequate  cause  of  all  things ! 
This  is  our  proper  attitude  in  the  presence  of  these  living 
facts !  We  propose  in  these  lectures  to  examine  the 
strongest  arguments  of  Messrs.  Darwin,  Hackel,  and  Hux- 
ley in  favor  of  their  theory  of  Evolution.  We  expect  to 
be  fair,  and  present  their  very  strongest  facts  and  attack 
their  philosophy  in  their  stronghold  without  much  or  any 
reference  to  the  Mosaic  account  of  Creation.  Moses  did 
not  need  our  help  or  sympathy.  While  we  mean  to  be  fair 
and  strictly  honest,  we  do  not  intend  to  exercise  much 
mercy  to  their  assumptions.  My  next  lecture  will  be  on 
Heredity,  or  Anatomical  resemblances  as  proving  man's 
descent  from  fishes  and  the  monkey  tribe  as  advocated  by 
these  eminent  naturalists. 


EVOLUTION.  269 

II. 

In  my  first  lecture  you  will  remember  that  I  confined 
my  remarks  principally  to  Professor  Hackel's  theory  of 
Spontaneous  Generation,  with  some  brief  notice  of  Mr. 
Darwin's  theory  of  Natural  Selection.  I  now  proceed 
to  examine  their  strongest  arguments  for  Evolution.  If 
I  succeed  in  overthrowing  these,  it  will  be  unnecessary  to 
notice  their  weaker  arguments. 

Professor  Hackel  next  undertakes  to  prove  that  man 
was  evolved  from  some  gilled  and  vertebrate  ancestors 
as  the  fish  and  the  monkey.  This  he  thinks  he  proves 
unquestionably  from  certain  embryonic  resemblances  of 
anatomical  structure  that  he  professes  to  have  discovered. 
He  devotes  two  large  volumes  mainly  to  this  subject, 
showing  the  importance  he  attaches  to  his  theory  of  de- 
scent. These,  gentlemen,  certainly  have  a  zeal  worthy  a 
more  rational  theory.  Their  perseverance  is  dogged  and 
untiring.  They  are  ransacking  all  creation  for  facts 
against  Moses.  All  right.  I  have  no  fears  that  they  will 
ever  seriously  damage  the  Mosaic  account  of  creation. 
This  matter  of  the  resemblances  of  anatomical  structure 
of  vertebrate  animals  (or  more  plainly  those  having  a 
jointed  backbone)  is  far-fetched  and  unphilosophical,  as 
establishing  the  theory  of  Descent  or  Evolution  of  man. 
Let  us  examine  it.  Hackel  infers  from  the  fact  that  man 
has  a  backbone  or  spine,  that  he  must  of  necessity  have 
descended  from  some  vertebrate  species.  The  earliest 
known  vertebrate  animal  is  admitted  to  be  the  Ganoid  or 
fish;  therefore  he  assumes  that  our  descent  is  from  some 
fish  ancestor.  But  if  the  ganoid  is  the  earliest  known 
vertebrate  animal,  what  was  its  nearest  lineal  ancestor? 
for  his  theory  requires,  as  does  Mr.  Darwin's,  that  they 
must  have  had  a  vertebrate  ancestor,  or  else  the  ganoid 
must  have  had  a  specific  creation,  or  come  into  being  by 
spontaneous  generation.  But  I  had  better  quote  what 
Professor  Hackel  says  on  the  subject.  In  his  "Evolution 
of  Man"  he  quotes  from  a  former  work  of  his  on  Morph- 
ology, and  we  have  these  words :  "The  history  of  the  evo- 


2;o  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

lution  of  organisms  consists  of  two  kindred  and  closely 
connected  parts :  Ontogeny,  which  is  the  history  of  the 
evolution  of  individual  organisms;  and  Philogeny,  which 
is  the  history  of  the  evolution  of  organic  tribes.  Ontogeny 
is  a  brief  and  rapid  recapitulation  of  philogeny,  dependent 
on  the  physiological  functions  of  heredity  (or  reproduc- 
tion) and  adaptation  (or  nutrition).  The  individual  or- 
ganism reproduces  in  the  rapid  and  short  course  of  its 
own  evolution  the  most  important  of  the  changes  in  form 
through  which  its  ancestors,  according  to  laws  of  heredity 
and  adaptation,  have  passed  in  the  slow  and  long  course 
of  their  paleontological  evolution." 

Also  from  Vol.  I,  p.  6,  "History  of  Creation,"  he  fur- 
ther explains :  "This  fundamental  law  to  which  we  shall 
again  and  again  recur,  and  on  the  recognition  of  which 
depends  the  thorough  understanding  of  the  history  of  evo- 
lution, is  briefly  expressed  in  the  proposition  that  the  his- 
tory of  the  germ  is  an  epitome  of  the  history  of  descent; 
or,  in  other  words,  that  ontogeny  is  a  recapitulation  of 
philogeny;  or,  somewhat  more  explicitly,  that  the  series 
of  forms  through  which  the  individual  organism  passes 
during  its  progress  from  the  egg-cell  to  its  fully  developed 
state  is  a  brief  compressed  reproduction  of  the  long  series 
of  forms  through  which  the  animal  ancestors  of  that 
organism  (or  the  ancestral  forms  of  its  species)  have 
passed  from  the  earliest  periods  of  so-called  organic  cre- 
ation down  to  the  present  time." 

Do  not  be  frightened  by  the  big  words  ontogeny, 
philogeny,  etc.  If  the  professor  is  not  learned  he  is  noth- 
ing. He  must  be  indulged  in  his  "philosophical  culture" 
a  little.  This  new  terminology  is  not  only  convenient 
to  make  you  stare  at  the  remarkable  scientific  culture 
these  men  prate  about  so  much,  but  it  is  a  good  cloak  to 
cover  up  a  very  weak  and  defective  philosophy.  We  will 
attempt  to  translate  this  long  paragraph  into  common  Eng- 
lish so  that  we  may  get  the  real  thing  he  aims  at.  Ontog- 
eny, if  it  means  anything,  means  this,  every  living  indi- 
vidual, being,  or  thing  in  its  development  from  its  earliest 
start  to  full  growth  has  in  itself  all  the  characteristics 


EVOLUTION.  271 

that  all  the  long  line  of  monkeys,  tortoises,  and  fishes,  etc., 
possessed  from  which  it  descended;  and  philogeny  is  a 
history  of  the  descent  of  the  tribes  or  classes  of  animals 
and  plants  to  which  these  individuals  belong.  All  this  is 
to  prepare  you  for  Professor  Hackel's  coming  announce- 
ment of  resemblances  of  anatomical  structure  proving 
descent  from  pre-existing  orders  or  species. 

Let  us  spend  a  few  moments  in  looking  at  this  much 
vaunted  theory.  These  vertebral  and  gill  resemblances, 
supposed  to  be  discovered  in  the  human  embryo,  is  a  most 
violent  assumption  that  the  Creator  was  shut  up  to  the 
necessity  that  if  He  created  the  different  species  of  verte- 
brates of  building  every  species  on  a  different  plan.  Not 
so.  Of  course  He  could  have  done  this  as  a  simple  act  of 
power,  but  He  was  wiser  than  that.  He  preferred,  like  a 
wise  and  skillful  architect,  to  have  a  general  plan  for  all 
vertebrates,  with  an  almost  infinite  variety  of  dissimilar- 
ities to  distinguish  the  several  species  from  each  other  and 
individualize  them.  But  Professor  Hackel  and  Mr.  Dar- 
win do  the  same  thing  by  natural  selection,  without  know- 
ing it,  thus  complimenting  the  wisdom  and  skill  of  the 
Creator's  work  unwittingly,  but  claiming  the  credit  thereof 
for  natural  selection  under  the  guidance  of  blind,  unintelli- 
gent law.  Allow  me  to  illustrate.  A  common  wheel- 
barrow or  velocipede  has  but  one  wheel,  and  a  cart  has 
two,  and  a  buggy  four,  and  some  locomotives  eight  wheels, 
constructed  on  one  general  plan.  Does  it  follow,  of  neces- 
sity, from  this  resemblance  in  the  simple  matter  of  the 
wheel  that  one  was  evoluted  from  the  other  by  natural 
selection?  Certainly  not.  It  is  no  disparagement  that 
these  are  regarded  as  distinct  creations  by  intelligent 
mechanics.  They  might  all  be  made  by  one  architect,  and 
may  redound  to  his  wisdom  and  skill.  So  the  different 
varieties  of  vertebrates  as  certainly  declare  the  wisdom 
and  skill  of  the  Divine  Architect.  Again,  take  the  uni- 
versal cog-wheel  used  in  the  almost  endless  variety  of 
useful  machinery.  It  is  the  common  and  universal  pat- 
tern for  all  machinery  differing  more  widely  in  their  ap- 
pearances,  construction,   and  purposes   than   the   wheel- 


272  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

barrow,  bicycle,  and  carriage.  The  general  plan  of  the 
cogs  is  not  changed  because  of  the  different  uses  of  the 
machines.  The  watch  has  cogs,  the  thresher  has  cogs, 
the  header  has  cogs,  the  waterwheel  has  cogs,  and  so 
hundreds  of  other  machines,  no  two  of  which  are  engaged 
in  the  same  kind  of  work.  Does  it  therefore  follow  that 
this  is  any  reflection  on  the  inventor  of  the  cog-wheel? 
Does  it  legitimately  or  scientifically  follow  that  all  ma- 
chinery having  cog-wheels  of  necessity  were  evoluted  from 
the  original  cog-wheel.  This  is  Professor  Hackel's  "ontog- 
eny and  philogeny"  in  a  nutshell.  But  does  not  the  verte- 
brate or  spinal  arrangement  in  the  animal  creation,  in  an 
almost  infinite  variety  of  species,  adapting  them  to  their 
different  situations  and  purposes  speak  volumes  to  the 
great  Creator's  intelligence  and  skill,  who  did  not  think 
it  necessary  to  vary  the  principle  of  the  spinal  column 
in  all  the  different  species  to  show  off  His  power  to  give 
each  class  of  vertebrates  a  backbone  constructed  on  a  dif- 
ferent principle  or  pattern?  This  ontogeny  theory  is  a 
wild  assumption  incapable  of  demonstration  any  more 
than  that  all  machines  having  cog-wheels  were  evoluted 
by  natural  selection  from  the  first  cog-wheel.  The  i^a 
or  hint  may  have  been  suggested  to  the  inventors  of  the 
host  of  machines  having  cogs,  but  the  evolution  you  will 
clearly  see  was  in  the  brains  of  the  inventor,  and  not  in 
the  machines.  Resemblance  then  of  anatomical  structure 
in  one  single  particular  of  the  backbone  is  too  small  a 
basis  to  prove  this  important  matter  of  descent.  It  utterly 
fails  to  satisfy  the  inductive  and  scientific  method  of  this 
age.  It  is,  to  say  the  most  for  it,  a  very  improbable 
hyopthesis.  Let  it  be  remembered  that  these  anatomical 
resemblances  or  vertebrate  and  tailed  animals  to  one  or 
two  or  a  very  few  particulars  are  the  chief  arguments  in 
support  of  evolution.  I  do  not  misstate  the  case.  What 
think  you  of  the  dogma  that  has  no  broader  foundation 
to  stand  on  than  this  vertebrate  resemblance,  and  prob- 
ably that  of  the  supposed  gills  of  a  fish  ?  If  resemblances 
of  anatomical  structure  are  of  such  great  importance  to 
establish  this  theory,  why  has  it  escaped  the  notice  of  these 


EVOLUTION.  273 

savants  in  structural  anatomy  to  overlook  the  conspicuous 
fact  that  almost  every  animal  has  a  head,  two  eyes,  two 
ears,  two  nostrils,  and  a  mouth.  They  all  resemble  each 
other  greatly  in  other  particulars;  they  have  tongues, 
teeth,  stomach,  liver,  heart,  and  lungs.  We  could  greatly 
multiply  these  resemblances.  You  see  how  generous  we 
are  to  help  our  evolutionist  brethren  out  in  this  argument 
of  resemblances  !  Truly  we  must  all  have  descended  from 
some  original  animal  that  had  all  these  varied  organs  in 
excess.  Why,  I  am  perfectly  surprised  and  stunned  by 
these  accumulated  points  of  resemblances  !  Surely  the  flea 
and  dog  must  have  descended  from  the  elephant  or  rhi- 
noceros, for  they  have  both  eyes,  mouth,  stomach,  heart 
(and  I  suspect  they  each  have  a  liver,  for  they  both 
live  [?]),  but  it  is  an  unsolved  problem  as  yet  which  will 
survive  the  other,  or  which  is  the  fittest  to  survive.  Why, 
bless  your  dear  souls,  Professor  Hackel  and  Charles  Dar- 
win, why  did  you  not  push  this  question  of  anatomical 
resemblances  to  its  legitimate  bounds  and  utterly  over- 
whelm the  Mosaic  account  of  the  creation?  I  am  really 
sorry  that  Mr.  Darwin  died  without  seeing  the  breadth  and 
strength  of  this  celebrated  argument  from  resemblances. 
Professor  Hackel  ought  to  have  sagacity  and  penetration 
enough  to  see  this  splendid  opportunity !  and  push  it  to 
a  triumphant  success.  But  jesting  aside,  gentlemen,  the 
theory  breaks  down  by  its  own  weakness  and  poverty  of 
facts.  Evolutionists  seem  to  have  an  idea  that  whatever 
they  advance  will  be  accepted  without  question;  but  they 
have  "mistaken  the  age  in  which  they  live."  Nothing  is 
taken  for  granted  now  without  well  demonstrated  truth. 
Again,  Messrs.  Darwin  and  Hackel  and  Huxley  enter 
a  new  field  in  search  of  proof  for  evolution.  This  time  it 
is  the  delicate  field  of  embryology.  They  go  armed  with 
microscopes  hunting  facts  and  resemblances.  Professor 
Hackel  regards  this  as  the  kingdom  of  his  richest  discov- 
eries and  greatest  triumphs.  I  will  give  Professor 
Hackel's  "gill  and  tail  argument,"  with  which  Charles 
Darwin  agrees,  as  their  supreme  proof  of  the  descent  of 
man,  first  from  the  fish  and  on  down  the  line  of  descent 
18 


274  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

to  the  ape.  Professor  Hackel  has  elaborate  plates  or  cuts 
in  the  best  dress  of  the  artist  to  represent  his  pretended 
discoveries  in  embryology  under  the  revealing  power  of 
the  microscope.  With  these  gorgeous  plates  he  seems 
perfectly  satisfied,  and  invites  the  special  attention  of  the 
reader  to  them.  I  now  quote  from  his  "History  of  Cre- 
ation" (Vol.  I,  pp.  289,  307,  308,  310,  and  314).  He  says: 
"I  wish  specially  to  draw  attention  to  plates  2  and  3, 
which  represent  embryos  in  all  stages  of  development, 
and  in  which  we  are  not  able  to  recognize  a  trace  of  the 
full-grown  animal.  .  .  .  Every  one  surely  knows  the 
gill  arches  of  the  fish.  Now  the  gill  arches  originally  exist 
the  same  in  man,  in  dogs,  in  fowls,  and  in  tortoises,  as 
well  as  in  other  vertebrate  animals.  .  .  .  Finally, 
while  comparing  the  embryos  on  plates  2  and  3,  we  must 
not  fail  to  give  attention  to  the  human  tail,  an  organ  which 
in  the  original  condition  man  shares  with  all  other  verte- 
brate animals.  Now  man  in  the  first  months  of  develop- 
ment possesses  a  real  tail,  as  well  as  his  nearest  kindred, 
the  tailless  apes  (orang-outang,  chimpanzee,  gorilla)  and 
vertebrate  animals  in  general.  ...  In  this  intimate 
connection  of  ontogeny  and  philogeny,  I  see  one  of  the 
most  important  and  irrefutable  proofs  of  the  theory  of 
descent.  No  one  can  explain  these  phenomena  unless  he 
has  recourse  to  the  laws  of  inheritance  and  adaptation. 
By  these  alone  are  they  explicable.  .  .  .  The  rudi- 
mentary little  tail  of  a  man  is  an  irrefutable  proof  of  the 
fact  that  he  is  descended  from  tailed  ancestors."  I  sup- 
pose now  after  this  quotation  no  one  will  charge  me  with 
exaggerating  the  position  of  the  leading  modern  evolu- 
tionists. Professor  Hackel  intends  to  show  by  these  plates 
that  the  embryo  man  at  a  certain  stage  of  development 
has  gills  like  a  fish  and  a  tail  like  a  monkey.  In  one  of 
these  cuts  he  represents  the  embryo  as  having  six  open- 
ings or  slits  across  the  throat  and  in  front  of  the  head  and 
neck.  In  the  next  stage  he  shows  but  four.  Here  is  a 
reduction  at  one  bound  of  one-third  of  the  number  of 
gill  arches,  which  is  flatly  in  the  face  of  his  and  Darwin's 
careful  and  emphatic  statements,  that  transformations  and 


EVOLUTION.  275 

changes  never  occur  by  "sudden  leaps."  Darwin  says: 
"Natural  selection  acts  only  by  taking  advantage  of  slight 
successive  variations;  she  can  never  take  a  great  and 
sudden  leap,  but  must  advance  by  short  and  sure,  though 
slow  steps.  ...  As  natural  selection  acts  solely  by 
accumulating  slight  successive  favorable  variations,  it  can 
produce  no  great  and  sudden  modifications."  (Origin  of 
Species,  pp.  156,  413.) 

Now  if  this  change  from  six  to  four  parts  in  a  few  days 
is  not  a  sudden  and  great  leap,  what  can  be?  They  con- 
stantly remind  us  in  their  works  that  many  ages  were 
necessary  to  change  one  species  to  another;  but  here  this 
foremost  and  boldest  evolutionist  shows  us  by  his  plates 
that  a  great  change  occurs  in  a  few  days,  or  weeks  at 
most.  The  most  serious  blunder  that  this  industrious 
naturalist  has  made,  however,  is  this:  He  has,  unfortu- 
nately for  his  cause,  placed  his  gill-arches  in  the  human 
embryo  in  the  wrong  place.  In  the  embryo  fish  they  are 
found  on  the  side  of  the  head  and  neck,  but  in  the  human 
embryo,  as  shown  in  his  plates,  these  openings  are  in 
front  of  the  head  and  neck.  But  in  the  fish  plate  there  is 
no  change  in  the  number  of  the  gill-arches,  as  in  the  hu- 
man embryo.  This  is  an  important  fact.  How  did  the 
gill-arches  from  our  fish  ancestors  sweep  around  from  the 
side  of  the  head  and  neck  to  the  front  in  a  few  weeks  at 
most?  Now  the  simple  explanation  of  these  supposed 
gills  in  the  human  embryo  is,  that  there  has  been  either 
an  egregious  blunder  or  a  deliberate  fraud  on  the  part 
of  Professor  Hackel  in  preparing  these  plates.  There  are 
no  gill-arches  in  the  human  embryo.  These  openings  on 
the  front  of  the  neck  and  head  of  the  human  embryo  that 
the  microscope  reveals  are  the  initial  mouth,  tongue,  jaw- 
bones, nose,  and  eyes.  The  additional  openings  that  have 
disappeared  were  simple  wrinkles  or  folds  of  the  neck 
when  the  head  reclines  on  the  breast  of  the  foetus.  These 
supposed  gill-arches  of  Professor  Hackel  differentiate  into 
the  bone  of  the  tongue,  jaw-bones,  nose,  and  eyes,  i  will 
prove  this  by  putting  the  professor  on  the  stand  as  the 
principal  witness.     Hear  him  in  his  "Evolution  of  Man" 


276  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

(Vol.  I,  p.  404)  :  "The  first  pair  of  gill-arches  differentiate 
into  the  rudiments  of  the  upper  and  lower  jaws,  the  tongue 
bone  and  the  bones  (ossicles)  of  the  ear." 

Will  the  professor  be  so  kind  as  to  inform  us  how  the 
fish  gets  its  nasal  openings,  mouth,  and  jaw-bones  from 
the  gill-arches  on  the  side  of  the  head?  Now  you  may 
be  able  to  see  one  of  the  possible  reasons  why  the  Creator 
put  these  openings  or  slits  in  the  human  embryo  in  front 
instead  of  the  side  of  the  head;  viz.,  to  fool  such  empiri- 
cists as  Professor  Hackel,  who  would  rather  find  a  seem- 
ing resemblance  looking  to  his  theory,  than  any  solid  fact 
that  would  be  against  him.  Whoever  heard  of  the  gill- 
arches  of  a  fish  sweeping  around  the  quarter  of  a  circle 
from  side  to  front,  as  he  makes  those  of  the  embryo  child 
do?  The  subject  of  human  embryology  is  an  infinitely 
more  difficult  fact  to  demonstrate  than  that  of  piscatology, 
and  every  cautious  and  conscientious  investigator  would 
be  more  careful  what  he  published  for  demonstrative  fact 
than  this  gentleman  has  been.  Why  has  not  this  indefat- 
igable student  of  natural  history  taken  his  microscope,  as 
he  could  have  done;  why  does  he  not  do  it  now,  and  ob- 
serve the  development  of  the  young  fish  from  the  simple 
egg  to  complete  development  of  the  embryo,  and  settle 
this  gill  question  forever?  He  can  see  every  change  that 
occurs  every  twenty-four  hours,  and  draw  his  plates  ac- 
cordingly, and  verify  them  to  the  satisfaction  of  every 
seeker  after  truth.  This  he  has  not  done,  or  if  he  has 
done  it  he  has  never  given  the  real  facts  to  the  world.  In 
all  of  Professor  Hackel's  other  plates  the  human  embryo 
with  gills  is  the  only  case  where  the  number  of  organic 
parts  shown  in  the  earlier  stages,  such  as  legs,  arms,  fin- 
gers, toes,  fins,  claws,  hoofs,  eyes,  ears,  etc.,  decrease  in 
number  as  development  advances.  Why  this  single  ex- 
ception? What  comes  of  this  hasty,  undemonstrated  as- 
sumption ?    It  is  a  mere  fiction. 

But  I  come  to  the  little  "human  tail"  argument  of 
Ernst  Hackel  upon  which  so  much  is  staked,  to  prove 
the  descent  of  man  from  the  monkey.  It  is  a  very  "little 
tail,"  and  a  much  smaller  argument  to  prove  it  as  some 


EVOLUTION.  277 

people  think.  I  am  compelled  to  inform  you  that  the 
professor  had  his  artist  who  prepared  his  elaborate  plates 
represent  the  human  embryo  with  this  "tail,"  to  convince 
you  that  your  nearest  ancestor  was  a  monkey.  Let  me 
repeat  what  he  says  by  way  of  refreshment.  "Man  in  the 
first  months  of  development  possesses  a  real  tail  as  well 
as  his  nearest  kindred,  the  tailless  apes.  .  .  .  This 
rudimentary  little  tail  of  man  is  an  irrefutable  proof  of 
the  fact  that  he  is  descended  from  tailed  ancestors."  I 
come  now  to  ask  you  people  of  common  sense  and  you 
cultured  people  of  this  city  to  examine  with  me  the  pro- 
fessor's foundation  for  this  story  of  the  human  tail.  If 
you  will  get  down  your  physiologies  and  look  at  the  anat- 
omy of  man,  you  will  find  the  terminal  vertebra  called  the 
"os  coccyx."  It  is  a  cone-shaped  bone,  and  is  a  little 
longer  than  the  other  vertebrae  of  the  spinal  column,  and 
has  a  very  slight  resemblance  to  a  short  tail.  In  the  em- 
bryo it  has  the  appearance  of  being  proportionately  longer 
than  in  the  developed  spine;  but  this  is  only  in  appearance, 
and  not  in  fact.  It  is,  in  fact,  not  proportionately  longer 
in  the  child  than  in  the  adult.  No  intelligent  physician 
will  deny  this  statement.  There  is  no  more  tail  in  a 
healthy  born  child  than  in  a  healthy  adult.  In  the  human 
skeleton  this  bone  seems  elongated,  but  is  not.  So  in  the 
embryo.  This  is  what  misled  the  professor.  He  was  look- 
ing for  a  human  tail  and  he  found  an  os  coccyx,  and  in 
his  zeal  and  wish  magnified  this  solitary  little  bone  into  a 
tail,  and  you  would  imagine  from  his  cut  that  it  had  as 
many  joints  or  vertebrae  in  it  as  in  the  tail  of  a  common 
monkey.  I  challenge  any  physiologist  or  microscopist  to 
prove  that  the  tail  of  the  embryo  child  has  more  than  this 
one  joint  called  the  os  coccyx.  Now  this  is  all  there  is 
of  Professor  Hackel's  "human  tail"  that  he  affirms  is  an 
irrefutable  proof  "of  our  descent  from  the  monkey,"  or 
"the  tailless  ape."  It  loses  all  its  force  as  an  argument 
because  it  is  not  true. 

Another  serious  blunder  the  professor  has  fallen  into 
in  these  plates,  is  a  cut  representing  an  infant  with  the 
tail  of  a  tortoise,  showing  our  descent  from  tailed  ances- 


278  STORY  OF  MY  LfFE. 

tors;  and  in  another  plate  he  shows  an  embryo  fish  with 
an  exact  copy  of  the  "little  human  tail."  Now  the  fish 
evidently  did  not  descend  from  the  tortoise,  for  the  pro- 
fessor tells  us  elsewhere  that  the  tortoise  must  have  de- 
scended from  the  fish.  Where  did  the  fish  get  its  human 
tail,  seeing  the  fish  lived  millions  of  years,  according  to 
these  scientists,  before  there  were  any  monkeys  or  men? 
The  professor  is  in  a  predicament !  But  a  little  farther 
on  he  makes  a  slip  that  breaks  the  backbone  of  his  theory 
of  descent.  It  is  this  about  the  Ascidian  or  Sea-squirt. 
This  animal,  by  all  naturalists  and  by  Professor  Hackel, 
is  classed  among  invertebrates,  or  those  without  backbone. 
In  his  book  ("Evolution  of  Man,"  Vol.  I,  p.  432)  we  have 
this :  "In  the  mature  sea-squirt  there  is  no  trace  of  a  noto- 
chord  or  an  inner  bony  axis.  This  adds  interest  to  the 
fact  that  the  young  animal  as  it  emerges  from  the  egg 
has  a  notochord,  above  which  lies  a  rudimentary  tube 
(the  spine).  In  the  mature  seasquirt  this  tube  is  entirely 
shriveled  up."  "In  this  tail  now  develops  a  cylindrical 
cord  composed  of  cells,  the  anterior  end  of  which  extends 
into  the  body  of  the  larva,  between  the  intestinal  and 
medullary  tube.  This  is  the  corda  dorsalis,  an  organ 
which,  except  in  this  one  case,  is  found  only  in  vertebrates, 
and  of  which  no  trace  is  to  be  seen  in  invertebrates." 
(Ibid.  Vol.  I,  p.  456.) 

"Gill  openings  afterwards  appear  in  the  anterior  sec- 
tion of  the  intestinal  canal,  by  which  the  whole  anterior 
intestine  is  formed  into  a  gill-body.  This  remarkable 
arrangement  is,  as  we  found,  quite  peculiar  to  vertebrates, 
and,  except  in  the  ascidians,  occurs  nowhere  else."  (Ibid. 
Vol.  II,  p.  85.) 

"When  these  organs  are  complete,  the  progressive  onto- 
geny of  the  ascidian  is  at  an  end,  and  retrogression  now 
commences.  The  freely  swimming  ascidian  larva  sinks 
to  the  bottom  of  the  sea  and  becomes  fixed.  .  .  .  The 
tail,  which  is  of  no  use,  is  now  lost." 

This  long  and  particular  account  of  the  ascidian  or 
sea-squirt  reveals  the  wonderful  industry  of  this  natural- 
ist !    I*  also  reveals  the  fact  that  he  is  looking  after  the 


EVOLUTION.  279 

descent  of  man,  by  his  careful  and  particular  account  of 
the  "notochord"   and  "medullary  tube"   of  this  ascidian 
and  its  lost  tail.     He,  you  see,  is  on  a  still  hunt  for  gill- 
arches,  spinal  chords,  and  caudal  appendages,  and  declares 
himself  successful  in  this  very  early  denizen  of  the  sea. 
Admit  it  for  argument's  sake.     What  then?     Let  us  see. 
If  this  ascidian  lived  long  ages  before  the  vertebrate  fishes, 
from  what  race  did  he  get  his  embryonic  gills,  corda  dor- 
salis,  and  tail?    Do  not  allow  it  to  escape  your  notice,  that 
this  sea-squirt  existed  millions  of  years  before  the  verte- 
brate gill-fish  had  a  being.     How  could  natural  selection 
in  this  case  act  where  there  were  no  vertebrates  or  gill- 
fish  or  tails  to  select  from?    How  can  he  bridge  this  vast 
chasm  ?    How  can  he  escape  the  consequences  of  his  con- 
tradictory philosophy?     But  again,  this  ascidian  illustra- 
tion completely  upsets  the  hypothesis  of  the  "survival  of 
the  fittest."     Its  continued  existence  to  this  day  and  its 
aborting  its  backbone,  gills,  and  tail,  the  evidences  of  the 
superior  races  from  which  it  sprang,  completely  shatters 
whatever  is  vital  in  Darwinism.     Has  the  fittest  in  this 
case  survived?     This  distinguished  scientist  has  written 
two  large  volumes  to  prove  spontaneous  generation,  and 
two  more  as  large  to  prove  the  descent  of  man  from  the 
fish  and  monkey;  and  it  is  no  exaggeration  to  say  that 
he  has  contradicted  himself  nearly  a  dozen  times  in  each 
volume.    This  is  the  gentleman  who  charged  a  large  num- 
ber of  naturalists,  every  way  his  equals,  with  lack  "of 
philosophical  culture,"  and  "calling  them  rude  empiricists" 
and  "destitute  of  the  most  important  facts  of  embryology." 
Here  it  is   (History  of  Creation,  Vol.  II,  pp.  247,  249, 
250)  :   "What   is   even   more   detrimental   to   the   general 
understanding  of  nature  as  a  whole,  than  this  one-sided 
tendency,  is  the  want  of  philosophical  culture,  and  this 
applies  to  most  of  the  naturalists  of  the  present  day." 
"It  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  the  deep,  inner  truth 
of  the  theory  of  descent  remains  a  sealed  book  to  those 
rude  empiricists."     "Even  in  our  own  day  most  paleon- 
tologists examine  and  describe   fossils  without  knowing 
the  most  important  facts  of  embryology."    I  submit  that 


28o  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

this  is  a  remarkable  criticism  on  such  men  as  Professors 
Aggasiz  and  Dana,  and,  as  he  says,  "most  paleontologists" 
of  our  day,  after  such  palpable  blunders  as  this  same 
gentleman  has  been  guilty  of  in  embryology  and  paleon- 
tology as  we  have  been  reviewing.  Such  egotism  and  self- 
laudation  is  disgusting  to  all  thinking  people !  Some 
one  has  said  the  professor  "is  slopping  over  with  philo- 
sophical culture."  It  needs  to  be  soundly  rebuked !  I 
thank  the  professor  for  one  concession  he  has  inadvert- 
ently made  here,  that  "most  of  the  naturalists  of  the  pres- 
ent day"  are  against  him.  But  all  who  differ  with  him 
will  be  set  down  as  "rude  empiricists." 

Now  after  such  a  reckless  and  careless  presentation 
of  supposed  facts  by  leading  scientists,  is  it  any  wonder 
that  there  should  be  a  growing  distrust  among  thinking 
people  as  to  much  that  passes  for  science?  Hear  what 
the  foremost  practical  scientist  of  this  or  any  age  says 
on  this  subject.  I  refer  to  Mr.  Edison,  who  in  his  depart- 
ment has  no  peer  in  Europe  or  America.  He  says :  "The 
text-books  are  mostly  misleading.  I  get  mad  with  myself 
when  I  think  what  I  have  believed,  what  was  so  learnedly 
set  out  in  them.  There  are  more  frauds  in  science  than 
anywhere  else.  Take  a  whole  pile  of  them  that  I  can 
name,  and  you  will  find  uncertainty  if  not  imposition  in 
half  of  what  they  state  as  scientific  truth.  They  have  time 
and  again  set  down  experiments  as  done  by  them,  curious 
out-of-the-way  experiments,  that  they  never  did,  and  upon 
which  they  have  founded  so-called  scientific  truths.  I 
have  been  thrown  off  my  track  often  by  them,  and  for 
months  at  a  time.  You  see  a  great  name  and  you  believe 
in  it.  Try  the  experiment  yourself,  and  you  find  the  re- 
sult altogether  different. 

"I  tell  you  I  'd  rather  know  nothing  about  a  thing  in 
science  nine  times  out  of  ten,  than  what  the  books  would 
tell  me — for  practical  purposes,  for  applied  science,  the 
best  science,  the  only  science,  I  'd  rather  take  a  thing 
up  and  go  through  with  it  myself.  .  I  'd  find  out  more  about 
it  than  any  one  could  tell  me,  and  I  'd  be  sure  of  what  I 
knew.    That 's  the  thing.    Professor  this  or  that  will  con- 


EVOLUTION.  281 

trovert  you  out  of  the  books,  and  prove  out  of  the  books 
that  it  can't  be  so,  though  you  have  it  right  in  the  hollow 
of  your  hand  all  the  time,  and  could  break  his  spectacles 
with  it."     (New  York  Herald,  December  31,  1879.) 

This  is  a  true  portraiture  of  much  of  the  Darwinian 
theory.  One  of  the  startling  announcements  of  Professor 
Hackel's  Ontogeny  theory,  as  quoted  above,  is,  that  every 
man  is  an  epitome  or  reproduction  of  the  characteristics 
of  all  the  long  line  of  ancestors  through  which  he  has 
descended  to  his  present  high  estate.  That  is,  he  pos- 
sesses in  the  course  of  his  evolution  from  infancy  to  full 
development  all  the  characteristics  of  the  monkey,  the  hog, 
the  dog,  the  horse,  the  lion,  the  tiger,  the  hyena,  the  shark, 
and  the  ganoid  down  to  the  moneron,  or  to  use  his  own 
words:  "The  series  of  form  through  which  the  individual 
passes  during  its  progress  from  the  egg-cell  to  its  devel- 
oped state  is  a  brief,  compressed  reproduction  of  a  long 
series  of  forms  through  which  the  animal  ancestors  have 
passed  from  the  earliest  periods  of  so-called  creation  down 
to  the  present  time." 

This  is  a  scientific  pill  that  is  hard  to  swallow.  A  man 
wTho  can  gulp  all  that  down  without  an  intellectual  revolt 
must  have  an  enormous  maw  for  the  novel  and  improb- 
able, if  not  for  the  absurd  and  impossible.  But  credulity 
cuts  some  queer  capers  in  this  intellectual  age,  and  you 
can  just  prepare  yourselves  for  the  absurd  improbable 
to  any  extent  in  the  shifting  and  Protean  phases  of  the 
scientific  infidelity  and  atheism  of  this  century. 

Just  for  one  moment  think  of  what  is  involved  in  this 
assumption  of  Professor  Hackel.  If  we  are  part  moneron, 
ganoid,  shark,  hyena,  tiger,  lion,  hog,  dog,  and  monkey, 
and  these  are  but  a  tithe  of  our  ancestors,  how  much  man 
is  there  left?  Where  does  human  accountability  begin 
with  all  these  transmitted  animal  characteristics?  Are 
any  of  man's  ancestors  accountable?  How  many  of  them 
are  endowed  with  conscience  or  the  moral  sense  ?  If  none 
of  them  possessed  a  conscience,  could  they  transmit  what 
they  never  had?  But  universal  man  has  a  conscience; 
where  did  he  get  this  high  endowment?     Hackel  if  he 


282  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

answered  would  be  compelled  to  say,  "By  spontaneous 
generation,"  and  Darwin  by  "Natural  selection,"  without 
anything  to  select  from.  Gentlemen,  this  philosophy  is  at 
war  with  the  best  consciousness  and  intelligence  of  the 
age  and  the  history  of  the  race.  Man  is  a  unique  being. 
He  is  sui  generis.  Nothing  like  it  in  the  world  of  animal 
existence  !  His  nearest  kindred  is  angelic  existence.  "He 
was  made  a  little  lower  than  the  angels."  He  was  made 
in  the  "image  of  his  Maker."  It  would  be  little  less  pro- 
fane to  assert  that  the  angels  that  burn  around  the  throne 
eternal  and  supernal  are  descended  from  the  baboon,  as 
to  hint  man's  descent  from  the  ape.  In  India  monkeys  are 
held  sacred  and  are  worshiped.  If  we  are  descended 
from  these  creatures,  it  would  be  about  as  innocent  a  kind 
of  idolatry  as  much  as  of  the  man-worship  that  is  prac- 
ticed in  our  world.  We  would  modestly  suggest  that  these 
scientific  gentlemen  can  hardly  be  sincere  in  their  belief 
that  monkeys  are  their  nearest  ancestors,  or  they  would 
not  treat  them  with  the  common  contempt  shown  the  most 
inferior  brute  creation.  Do  not  allow  yourselves  to  be 
fooled  by  these  scientific  pretensions — these  gentlemen  are 
more  anxious  to  overthrow  Christianity  than  they  are  to 
prove  man's  descent  from  the  monkey.  This  is  a  very 
thin  and  weak  pretext.  Why  would  it  not  be  a  pertinent 
thing  for  Hackel  and  some  of  his  admiring  disciples  to 
write  four  more  ponderous  volumes  to  prove  the  descent 
of  the  ape  tribe,  man's  nearest  relative,  from  some  tortoise 
or  fish,  seeing  he  is  a  vertebrate  and  has  the  supposed  gill- 
arches  during  his  embryo  state?  Does  any  sane  man  be- 
lieve that  Darwin  and  Hackel  would  ever  have  under- 
taken the  herculean  task  they  have  in  their  researches  to 
prove  that  the  present  monkey  tribe  are  descended  from 
vertebrate  and  branchial  ancestors  had  Moses  omitted  to 
mention  man's  creation  as  a  specific  act  of  the  Creator, 
but  said  the  monkey  was  thus  created?  It  is  utterly  im- 
probable. There  is  no  mention  made  in  the  Mosaic  ac- 
count of  the  creation  of  the  angels,  and  they  are  doubtless 
created  beings.  There  are  no  industrious  and  laborious 
researches  to  prove  their  descent  from  monkeys  by  these 


EVOLUTION.  283 

cultured  gentlemen !  In  this  fact  there  is  food  for  reflec- 
tion for  thoughtful  and  candid  men.  Gentlemen,  in  this 
erudite  discussion  of  these  savants  inquire  what  can  be  the 
motive  for  all  this  labor  and  research.  When  you  shall 
have  discovered  the  real  motive,  you  will  turn  on  a  flood 
of  light  on  this  novel  and  unexpected  discovery  of  man's 
descent  that  will  be  surprising,  and  reveal  to  you  the  true 
inwardness  of  modern  evolution. 

In  the  third  lecture  we  will  continue  the  subject  of 
heredity,  or  anatomical  resemblances  adduced  by  these 
gentlemen  to  prove  man's  descent  from  the  monkey  tribe. 

III. 

Heredity  and  Anatomical  Resemblances. 

This  lecture  will  be  devoted  to  some  additional  phases 
of  heredity  or  descent.  Much  account  is  made  of  trans- 
missions of  physical  characteristics  and  resemblances  by 
these  leading  evolutionists  to  prove  the  descent  of  man 
from  primitive  protoplasm  or  moneron  down  through  al- 
most countless  species  of  animals  to  his  present  high 
estate.  This  is  the  argument  upon  which  they  most  rely 
to  etablish  a  very  absurd  hypothesis,  as  we  think.  As  the 
"gill"  and  "tail"  theory  applied  to  man  has  been  shown 
to  be  a  silly  myth,  so  we  hope  to  be  able  to  show  that 
other  supposed  resemblances  urged  by  these  gentleman 
are  equally  without  any  solid  foundation  in  fact.  These 
facts,  relied  on  to  prove  man's  descent,  are  the  absence 
of  upper  teeth  in  cows,  the  supposed  embryo  legs  and 
teeth  in  whales  and  the  boa  constrictor.  They  insist  that 
these  prove  that  these  animals  descended  from  ancestors 
that  had  legs  and  teeth.  If  these  are  facts,  which  is  ex- 
ceedingly doubtful,  then  we  propose  to  show  that  they  are 
among  the  strongest  arguments  against  evolution.  These 
pretended  facts  are  self-contradictory.  They  "utterly 
shatter"  "natural  selection"  or  "survival  of  the  fittest," 
which  is  the  main  pillar  of  Mr.  Darwin's  fabric  of  evolu- 
tion, and  if  this  gives  way  the  entire  system  of  necessity 
topples  over. 


284  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

Let  me  state  in  as  brief  and  perspicuous  a  paragraph 
as  possible  what  Darwin,  Huxley,  and  Herbert  Spencer 
teach  as  implied  in  "natural  selection"  or  ''survival  of  the 
fittest."  Natural  selection  implies  that  there  is  inherent 
in  matter  "a  potency  and  promise"  of  perfection,  which 
is  constantly  going  on,  overcoming  and  supplanting  the 
weakest  elements  in  organic  life  and  displacing  and  utterly 
annihilating  them,  leaving  only  the  strong  and  best  to  sur- 
vive till  the  highest  and  most  perfect  are  in  supremacy 
and  complete  dominion.  This  process  is  called  "the  strug- 
gle for  existence"  and  "the  survival  of  the  fittest."  It 
means,  then,  an  upward  tendency  of  perfect  beneficial 
progress,  and  not  degeneration. 

Now  I  quote  from  these  eminent  authorities  to  show 
you  that  I  have  not  misrepresented  them  in  this  definition 
of  evolution.  Darwin  says :  "Natural  selection  acts  ex- 
clusively by  the  preservation  and  accumulation  of  vari- 
ations which  are  beneficial."  "Natural  selection  acts  only 
by  the  preservation  and  accumulation  of  small  inherited 
modifications,  each  profitable  to  the  preserved  being."  "On 
the  other  hand,  we  may  feel  sure  that  any  variation  in  the 
least  injurious  would  be  rigidly  destroyed.  The  preser- 
vation of  favorable  individual  differences  and  variations, 
and  the  destruction  of  those  which  are  injurious,  I  have 
called  natural  selection,  or  survival  of  the  fittest."  "New 
and  improved  varieties  continually  take  the  place  of  and 
supplant  and  exterminate  the  older." 

"In  all  cases  the  new  and  improved  forms  of  life  tend 
to  supplant  the  old  and  unimproved  forms." 

"As  natural  selection  works  solely  for  and  by  the  good 
of  each  being,  and  corporeal  and  mental  endowments  will 
tend  to  progress  toward  perfection."  (Origin  of  Species, 
PP-  63>  75>  97>  266>  292,  413,  and  428.) 

You  see  how  carefully  he  has  weighed  his  words,  and 
I  am  glad  he  has  been  so  explicit  in  his  definitions. 

Now  hear  Professor  Huxley's  definition  of  natural 
selection,  and  note  how  exactly  he  agrees  with  Mr.  Dar- 
win. He  says:  "It  seems  impossible  that  any  variation 
which  may  arise  in  a  species  in  nature  should  not  tend 


EVOLUTION.  285 

in  some  way  or  other  to  be  a  little  better  or  worse  than 
the  previous  stock;  if  it  is  a  little  better,  it  will  have  an 
advantage  over  and  tend  to  extirpate  the  latter  in  this 
crush  and  struggle;  and  if  it  is  a  little  worse,  it  will 
itself  be  extirpated."  (Lectures  on  Origin  of  Species, 
p.  123.) 

With  this  Herbert  Spencer  agrees :  "From  the  remotest 
part  which  science  can  fathom,  up  to  the  novelties  of 
yesterday,  an  essential  trait  of  evolution  had  been  the 
transformation  of  the  homogeneous  into  the  heterogene- 
ous. At  the  same  time  that  evolution  is  a  change  from  the 
homogeneous  to  the  heterogeneous,  it  is  a  change  from  the 
indefinite  to  the  definite.  Along  with  an  advancement 
from  simplicity  to  complexity  there  is  an  advance  from 
confusion  to  order."     (First  Principles,  pp.  359,  362.) 

Now  no  honest  inquirer  will  charge  me  with  overstat- 
ing their  definitions  of  the  meaning  of  "Natural  selection, 
or  survival  of  the  fittest."  They  manufactured  these  terms 
and  have  thus  defined  them.  They  must  swallow  their 
own  medicine,  and  gracefully  submit  to  the  results.  Let 
us  see  how  stubborn  facts  fly  in  the  face  of  natural  selec- 
tion as  thus  defined.  Take  their  embryonic  whale  with  its 
supposed  legs  and  teeth  and  look  at  it.  They  tell  us  that 
the  whale  must  have  descended  from  some  species  of  ani- 
mals that  had  teeth  and  legs.  Some  quadruped  that  was 
accustomed  to  frequent  the  marshes  and  rivers.  This  habit 
of  visiting  the  water  became  so  inveterate  that  in  time 
it  became  amphibious  and  evoluted  into  an  otter,  a  musk- 
rat,  an  alligator,  and  finally  into  a  hippopotamus,  and  then 
into  a  whale  "by  slight  successive  variations."  These 
embryonic  teeth  and  legs  are  the  evidences  of  the  whale's 
descent.  Gentlemen,  I  have  not  manufactured  this  ab- 
surdity nor  exaggerated  it.  It  is  one  of  the  brilliant 
assumptions  of  the  Professor  of  Natural  History  of  the 
University  of  Jena,  the  very  foremost  evolutionist  of  to- 
day.    His  name  is  Professor  Hackel.     Hear  him. 

"It  is  probable  that  the  remarkable  legion  of  whales 
(Cetacea)  originated  out  of  hoofed  animals  which  accus- 
tomed  themselves    exclusively   to    an    aquatic    life,    and 


286  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

thereby  became  transformed  into  the  shape  of  a  fish." 
(History  of  Creation,  Vol.  II,  p.  257.) 

Does  not  that  smell  fishy?  Now  I  put  the  question 
to  Darwin,  Huxley,  and  Spencer,  and  to  all  their  dis- 
ciples, Which  comprise  the  more  perfect  species  in  the 
domain  of  the  animal  kingdom,  hoofed  animals  or  whales  ? 
Which  is  the  more  complex  and  perfect  in  organization? 
What  comes  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest  if  this  theory 
is  true?  How  about  the  extinction  and  annihilation  of 
the  older  species?  Are  not  the  hoofed  species  still  in 
existence,  and  does  not  the  rapid  diminution  of  the  whale 
tribe  indicate  that  their  ancestors  that  had  legs  and  teeth 
are  likely  to  survive  them  in  the  "struggle  for  existence  ?" 
Is  this  a  clear  case  of  the  inferior  succumbing  to  the  su- 
perior? or  the  very  reverse?  Are  hoofed  animals  an 
extinct  race?  Were  these  teeth  and  legs  of  the  whales' 
ancestors  injurious  to  them,  that  they  thus  were  aborted 
and  lost?  But  I  must  remind  you  that  these  eminent 
scientists  teach  that  it  took  hundreds  of  millions  of  years 
to  convert  a  hoofed  animal  into  a  whale,  and  then  millions 
more  to  convert  the  whale  into  a  cow,  a  horse,  or  an  elk, 
and  then  spent  some  fifty  millions  or  more  years  to  evolve 
them  back  into  a  whale  from  some  hoofed  species  that 
was  "accustoming  itself  to  an  aquatic  life"  while  browsing 
about  the  swamps  and  rivers.  You  see  that  this  case  of 
the  whales  originating  from  a  superior  species  of  animals 
slaps  "the  survival  of  the  fittest"  squarely  in  the  face.  Is 
this  evolution  towards  perfection,  or  backwards  ?  Another 
scathing  fact  is,  that  while  this  change  of  the  fish,  the 
oldest  vertebrate  animal,  into  a  hoofed  animal,  requiring 
many  millions  of  years,  and  then  the  conversion  of  the 
hoofed  animal  back  again  into  the  whale,  that  not  one  of 
these  different  species  has  been  extirpated,  as  Darwin, 
Huxley,  and  Spencer  declare  must  take  place,  because 
natural  selection  "acts  only"  for  the  preservation  of  what 
is  beneficial  and  profitable,  and  the  expiration  of  what  is 
"injurious"  and  useless.  The  weaker  and  inferior  in  "the 
struggle  and  crush"  must  become  extinct.  Has  this  been 
done?    Nothing  of  the  kind  has  occurred;  and  these  men 


EVOLUTION.  287 

know  it  only  too  well.  Paleontology  and  geology  are  a 
standing  proof  of  my  assertion.  The  Plesiosaurus,  the 
Icthyosaurus,  the  Megatherius,  and  many  other  highly 
organized  animals  have  become  extinct,  while  the  Moneron 
of  Hackel,  not  larger  than  a  pin's  head,  and  the  Ganoid 
and  other  inferior  species  in  countless  millions,  that  are 
millions  of  years  older,  survive  the  magnificent  species. 
Gentlemen,  this  embryonic  leg  and  teeth  business  of  the 
whale  is  exploded  by  their  own  definition  of  "natural  se- 
lection," or  "survival  of  the  fittest,"  and  it  is  a  bald 
assumption  without  well  authenticated  truth.  We  admit 
there  may  be  something  there  that  slightly  resembles  teeth 
and  legs,  but  they  are  something  else,  as  is  evidenced  when 
they  have  developed.  We  doubt  not  but  that  the  Creator 
has  put  these  things  in  the  animal  organism  to  serve  some 
valuable  purpose  not  manifest  to  us,  as  the  spleen  and 
other  parts  of  the  animal  organization.  Who  knows  the 
use  of  the  hard  warts  on  the  inside  of  a  horse's  legs? 
Neither  Darwin  nor  Huxley,  I  venture.  This  theory  of 
aborted  legs  and  teeth  is  a  preposterous  piece  of  super- 
stition a  thousand  times  more  improbable  than  that  a 
"great  fish"  swallowed  Jonah;  yea,  if  you  should  reverse 
the  Bible  story  and  say  that  Jonah  swallowed  the  whale, 
it  would  be  as  probable  as  that  the  whale  descended  from 
some  hoofed  animal  that  was  browsing  about  the  estuaries 
of  the  ocean  and  turned  into  a  whale.  About  twelve  years 
ago  I  was  traveling  on  horseback  on  the  California  coast 
of  the  Pacific.  I  saw  a  huge  monster  of  a  fish  lying  on 
the  beach  quivering  in  death.  I  measured  it,  and  found 
that  it  was  twenty-six  feet  in  length,  and  when  lying  on 
its  side  was  nearly  four  feet  in  height.  It  had  a  mouth 
large  enough  to  take  in  a  yearling  calf.  It  was  a  whale 
shark.  It  had  capacity  to  have  taken  in  Charles  Darwin, 
Professors  Huxley  and  Hackel,  and  room  to  spare.  This 
fish  abounds  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  where  Jonah  is 
said  to  have  been  taken  by  a  "great  fish."  Which  think 
you  is  the  more  plausible  and  probable  story,  that  a  hoofed 
animal  accustoming  itself  to  an  aquatic  life  one  day  turned 
into  a  whale?  or  that  a  fish  such  as  I  saw  swallowed 


288  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

Jonah?     This  is  a  fair  case  of  comparative  probabilities. 
The  difficulties  of  Infidelity  and  Atheism  say  that  Jonah 
swallowed .  the  whale.     Do  n't  you  see  that  an  ounce  of 
conjecture,    coming   from    these   scientists,   weighs   more 
with  some  people  than  a  ton  of  well-established  facts  com- 
ing from  Moses?    These  industrious  naturalists  are  hunt- 
ing for  legs  and  upper  teeth  to  prove  man's  descent  from 
fishes  and  monkeys,  and  they  have  discovered  something 
that  resembles  teeth  and  legs  in  a  whale  and  the  boa  con- 
strictor.    I  do  not  question  it,  but  deny  that  this  is  proof 
demonstrative  that  whales   are  descended   from   animals 
having  legs  and  teeth;  and  this  is  the  question  at  issue. 
A  man  like  Professor  Hackel,  who  in  some  of  his  elab- 
orate plates  represents  the  tortoise  having  a  larger  head 
than  the  child  (I  do  not  misrepresent  him),  is  not  to  be 
relied  on  as  a  truthful  microscopist.     If  he  magnifies  the 
tortoise's  head  and  minifies  the  human  head,  he  would  be 
quite  likely  to  exaggerate  these  embryo  legs  and  teeth  of 
the  whale.    Honestly !    Professor  Huxley  also  in  his  New 
York  lecture  represented  in  elaborate  plates  the  orohippus 
as  large  as  the  common  horse,  which  is  not  larger  than 
the  common  fox.    But  we  must  give  a  moment's  attention 
to  the  absence  of  upper  teeth  in  cows,  and  the  presence  of 
these  teeth  in  the  upper  jaw  of  the  unborn  calf,  or  we  will 
be  charged  with  evading  one  of  their  strongest  proofs  for 
the  descent  of  man  from  the  fish  and  monkey.    But  the  in- 
superable difficulty  in  this  pungent  fact  of  Charles  Darwin 
is,  that  it  completely  upsets  his  pet  definitions  and  prin- 
ciples of  evolution,  and  these,  as  you  have  seen,  are  essen- 
tial to  his  theory.     I  will  show  just  where  this  occurs. 
You  will  remember  in  the  ample  quotations   from  him 
given  above  that  he  insists  "that  natural  selection  acts 
solely  and  exclusively  for  and  by  the  preservation   and 
accumulation  of  variations  that  are  beneficial  and  profit- 
able to  the  preserved  being."     But  upper  teeth  in  the  cow 
would  be  exceedingly  beneficial  and  profitable  in  cropping 
grass  and  twigs.     We  see  this  increased  advantage  in  the 
horse  tribe.    Many  a  cow  brute  has  lost  her  life  for  want 
of  them  when  tender  grass  was  scarce,  and  she  was  called 


EVOLUTION.  289 

on  to  live  on  hard  twigs.     But  a  more  fatal  defect  in  his 
theory  about  the   absence  of  upper  teeth   in  the  bovine 
species  is,  that  constant  use  of  any  organ  tends  to  its  per- 
fection  and  permanency,   and  disuse   destroys   and   does 
away  with  organs.     Now  the  progenitors  of  the  cow,  I 
mean  the  species  from  which  they  came  into  being,  must 
have  had  upper  teeth,  or  the  theory  falls  to  the  ground; 
and  if  they  had  upper  teeth,  they  must  have  been  necessary 
to  them  in  the  very  nature  of  the  case.     They  must  have 
used  them  habitually,  and  if  habitually  they  must  have  be- 
come more  perfect  and  permanent  by  the  universal  law  of 
use.     If  so,  will  these  naturalists  explain  how  they  lost 
their  teeth  till  some  one  of  the  tribe  contracted  the  habit 
of  living  without  upper  teeth,  and  then  transmitted  this 
toothless  front  upper  jaw  to  the  present  race  of  cattle? 
This  whole  upper  jaw  argument  overthrows  this  general 
law,  that  use  tends  to  the  perfection  and  permanency  of 
any  needful  organ.     It  will  be  readily  conceded  by  all 
naturalists  that  front  upper  teeth  in  cows  would  greatly 
facilitate  the  cropping  of  grass  and  twigs  that  are  often 
necessary  to  life.     If  natural  selection  preserves  only  the 
beneficial   and  profitable,   as   Darwin  insists,   will   evolu- 
tionists  please   account   for  the   absence   of  these   upper 
teeth,  and  also  explain  what  advantage  there  is  of  the 
hump  on  the  camel's  back,  or  the  bushy  tail  to  the  fox,  or 
the  enormous  fat  tail  of  the  wild  mountain  sheep  weighing 
twenty  and  thirty  pounds,  or  the  immense  horns  of  the  elk 
as  he  drives  through  the  forest  from  his  pursuers?     I 
think  the  Creator  had  good  reason  for  creating  cows  with- 
out front  upper  teeth,  and  the  camel  with  his  hump,  and 
so  forth,  whether  we  understand  it  or  not;  but  evolution- 
ists of  the  agnostic  and  atheistic  school  like  Hackel,  Hux- 
ley, and  Darwin,   cut  themselves  off  from  this  reserved 
right  by  their  own  definitions  of  "natural  selection"  or 
"survival  of  the  fittest."    Eyeless  fishes  and  rats  evidently 
became  such  by  a  life  in  some  rayless  cavern,  as  in  the 
Mammoth  Cave  in  Kentucky.     Fowls  that  cease  to  use 
their  wings,  as  in  forced  domestication,  become  practically 
useless  as  flyers,  which  is  a  clear  perversion  of  the  Cre- 
19 


290  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

ator's  law,  that  use  strengthens  and  perfects  any  useful 
organ  and  insures  its  permanency.  You  might  about  as 
well  undertake  to  overthrow  the  law  of  gravitation,  or  the 
law  of  cause  and  effect,  as  this  law  of  use  tending  to  the 
perfection  and  permanency  of  an  organ.  How  can  Mr. 
Darwin  explain  this  fact  in  his  theory  that  the  cow  did  not 
lose  her  upper  molar  teeth  as  well  as  her  incisors?  A 
brief  account  of  the  facts  of  crossing  different  species,  so 
much  relied  on  by  Mr.  Darwin  to  prove  the  descent  of 
man,  deserves  a  passing  notice.  Of  course  we  can  not, 
for  want  of  time,  give  an  exhaustive  treatment  of  a  very 
broad  subject,  much  of  which  would  not  be  proper  before 
a  mixed  audience.  The  claim  that  breeders  have  produced 
distinct  species  of  animals  by  crossing  is  in  conflict  with 
natural  selection.  It  is  freely  granted  that  by  wise  care 
species  may  be  greatly  modified  and  improved  by  cross- 
ing; but  that  they  have  produced  a  new  and  really  dis- 
tinct species  is  exceedingly  doubtful  and  improbable.  We 
mean  a  species  as  distinct  as  the  dog  and  the  hog,  or  as  a 
cow  and  a  horse.  A  fox  and  dog  may  be  crossed;  so  a 
horse  and  a  Jack,  but  these  evidently  belong  to  the  genus 
dog  and  horse.  Mr.  Darwin,  on  the  subject  of  natural 
selection  in  crossing  different  species,  says:  "Any  occa- 
sional deviation  of  structure  such  as  a  monstrosity  would 
be  a  rare  event,  and  if  at  first  preserved  it  would  generally 
be  lost  by  subsequent  intercrossing  with  ordinary  individ- 
uals." (Origin  of  Species,  p.  71.)  "Monstrosities  can  not 
be  separated  by  any  distinct  line  from  slight  variations." 
(Origin  of  Species,  p.  6.)  Here  is  a  clear  concession  that 
monstrosities  and  hybrids  are  not  the  offspring  of  natural 
selection,  but  of  forced  and  unnatural  conditions,  and  will 
soon  destroy  themselves.  The  Creator  has  placed  a  com- 
plete barrier  to  the  creation  of  one  species  from  another, 
and  yet  in  the  face  of  this  admission  Darwin  persists  in 
showing  that  careful  crossing  by  experts  renders  it  prob- 
able, if  not  possible,  to  produce  new  and  distinct  species. 
Thus  they  are  constantly  contradicting  themselves.  The 
only  case  of  an  apparent  successful  attempt  to  create  a 
new  species  is  seen  in  the  mule;  but  nature  stubbornly  in 


EVOLUTION.  291 

this  instance  resists  further  efforts,  which  is  a  potent  argu- 
ment that  an  essentially  distinct  and  new  species  can  never 
be  produced  by  forced  breeding,  much  less  by  natural 
selection.  This  absolute  fact  is  an  insurmountable  argu- 
ment against  evolution  as  here  taught.  The  sterility  of 
hybrids  is  God's  standing  monument  that  He  created  each 
species  to  transmit  its  own  and  no  other  kind.  Some  one 
has  said:  "You  may  insult  nature  once,  but  not  a  second 
time."  An  acorn  can  never  be  tortured  to  produce  an 
apple-tree;  nor  a  cucumber  a  potato.  So  the  law  in  the 
animal  kingdom  is  inflexible  and  invariable,  except  in 
simple  variations  of  the  same  species. 

There  are  unquestionably  many  mysterious  facts  in 
heredity  that  may  freely  be  admitted,  and  wonderful  facts 
too;  but  the  question  is,  does  Darwin's  theory  account  for 
these  more  rationally  than  some  other  hypothesis?  Dar- 
win attributes  the  inherited  physical  qualities  and  pecu- 
liarities to  natural  selection,  or  wholly  to  physical  causes 
by  transmissions  through  the  blood.  In  fact,  this  is  the 
generally  accepted  view.  Such  expressions  as  "blood  will 
tell"  and  "a  chip  off  the  old  block"  are  supposed  to  imply 
that  physical  qualities  are  about  all  that  are  transmitted. 
But  this  view  is  being  seriously  questioned  by  eminent 
physiologists  and  metaphysicians  of  our  day.  It  is  a  well 
established  fact,  that  the  corporeal  constitution  of  man  is 
totally  changed  every  seven  years,  and  some  more  recent 
physiologists  hold  that  it  is  entirely  changed  in  one  year. 
If  this  is  so,  then  physical  qualities  possessed  by  ancestors 
can  not  be  thus  transmitted.  Professor  Huxley's  testi- 
mony ought  to  pass  current  among  my  evolution  friends. 
He  says :  "So  constant  and  universal  is  this  absorption  and 
waste  and  reproduction,  that  it  may  be  said  with  perfect 
certainty  that  there  is  left  in  no  one  of  our  bodies  at  the 
present  moment  a  millionth  part  of  the  matter  of  which 
they  were  originally  formed."  (Lectures  on  Origin  of 
Species,  p.  28.)  Dr.  Dunglison,  a  high  authority,  speaks 
on  this  point  thus :  "The  human  body  from  the  moment 
of  its  formation  to  the  cessation  of  existence  is  under- 
going constant  decay  and  renovation,  decomposition  and 


292  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

composition,  so  that  at  no  two  periods  can  it  be  said  to 
have  exactly  the  same  constituents.  .  .  .  Setting  aside 
the  erroneous  pathological  notions,  that  assign  to  the  blood 
what  properly  belongs  to  cell  life  in  the  system  of  nu- 
trition, how  can  we  suppose  a  taint  to  continue  for  years, 
or  even  for  entire  generations,  in  a  fluid  which  is  per- 
petually undergoing  mutation,  and  at  any  distant  interval 
can  not  be  presumed  to  have  one  of  its  quondam  particles 
remaining."     (Human  Physiology,  pp.  73,  450.) 

These  views  are  a  flat  contradiction  of  Darwin's  phy- 
sical transmissions.  The  authorities  holding  that  man's 
corporeal  organization  undergoes  an  entire  change  at  least 
once  in  seven  years  could  be  indefinitely  multiplied.  If 
this  is  a  well  demonstrated  truth,  we  will  be  compelled 
to  change  our  theory,  that  physical  qualities  and  character- 
istics are  inherited.  Mind  or  mental  qualities  are  the  im- 
portant things  that  are  transmitted,  or  rather  that  modify 
the  physical  peculiarities.  Wilford  Hall,  one  of  the  acutest 
minds  since  the  days  of  Bishop  Butler,  holds  that  mind  or 
soul  is  a  real  entity,  or  organized  something  as  real  as 
gravitation  or  electricity.  One  is  organized  spirit,  the 
other  organized  matter;  one  corporeal,  the  other  incor- 
poreal. Mind  is  a  real  entity,  and  is  the  greatest  force  in 
the  universe.  This  is  a  well  established  fact,  as  we  look 
at  the  reign  of  mind  over  matter.  If  there  is  any  "sur- 
vival of  the  fittest,"  you  will  find  it  in  the  realm  of  mind, 
and  not  of  matter.  I  need  not  undertake  to  rehearse  the 
triumphs  of  mind  over  matter  in  this  nineteenth  century 
in  this  presence. 

Its  place  in  the  great  question  of  heredity  is  being  well 
established,  and  accounts  for  a  larger  class  of  mysterious 
facts  of  inherited  characteristics,  than  the  so-called  phys- 
ical inheritance  held  by  materialists  of  the  Hackel  and 
Darwin  schools.  Mind  has  more  to  do  in  fixing  character 
tenfold  than  physical  peculiarities.  Let  any  one  read  with 
care  the  account  of  Jacob's  experience  with  the  cattle  of 
his  Uncle  Laban,  in  putting  "peeled  rods"  in  the  "water- 
troughs,"  and  the  results  following,  and  you  will  have  a 
significant  proof  of  the  influence  of  the  mind  on  this  primal 


EVOLUTION.  293 

question  of  inheritance.  I  may  not  go  farther  into  par- 
ticulars to  account  for  this  recent  view  as  explanatory  of 
more  of  these  facts  of  heredity  than  any  physical  theory 
extant.  I  therefore  assert,  without  fear  of  successful  con- 
tradiction, that  all  the  reliable  facts  of  historic  and  pre- 
historic times  are  palpably  against  Agnostic  and  Athe- 
istic evolution.  It  is  well  settled  by  geologic  science,  that 
the  remains  of  the  extinct  races  of  animals  and  men  are 
as  perfect  in  organization  and  size  as  are  those  of  present 
generations.  There  has  nothing  occurred  in  historic  times 
to  prove  the  progress  of  evolution  in  animal  organizations, 
either  in  size,  beneficial  perfection  of  structure,  or  change 
of  species.  It  must  of  necessity  follow,  if  evolution  means 
progress  towards  perfection,  change  of  physical  structure, 
conversions  into  new  species  and  tribes,  and  the  utter  ex- 
tinction of  the  older  forms  and  weaker  classes  in  "the 
struggle  for  existence,"  as  these  gentlemen  absolutely 
claim,  that  we  would  see  animals  in  all  stages  of  change 
and  progress.  There  would  be  some  hoofed  animals  just 
passing  into  whales  and  boa  constrictors,  fishes  into  dogs, 
horses  and  monkeys  just  dropping  their  tails  and  emerg- 
ing into  manhood.  This  is  precisely  the  ground  taken  by 
Professor  Agassiz,  the  foremost  naturalist  in  America  and 
the  peer  of  any  European  naturalist.  This  state  of  facts 
ought  to  be  present  and  manifest  on  the  supposition  that 
the  evolution  theory  has  any  foundation  in  fact.  But  as 
nothing  of  the  kind  has  ever  been  seen — for  if  any  one 
had  ever  discovered  it  these  industrious  naturalists,  Dar- 
win, Hackel,  and  Huxley,  would  not  have  been  slow  to 
confront  their  opponents  with  it  ere  this — there  is  not 
the  slightest  probability  of  its  truth.  It  is  a  most  improb- 
able probability.  Were  it  not  for  the  regard  I  have  for 
these  men  in  other  respects,  I  would  be  tempted  to  say 
that  the  theory  as  they  hold  and  teach  it  is  not  respectable 
nonsense. 

On  this  foremost  question  as  Darwin  makes  it  of 
heredity,  I  desire  to  invite  attention  to  the  subject  of  sex, 
as  it  has  an  important  bearing  on  evolution  as  taught  by 
these  gentlemen.    Sex  is  a  universal  and  interesting  fact, 


294  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

and  one  of  far-reaching  consequences  and  vast  issues  in 
this  world  of  ours.  Sex  is  either  the  result  of  a  specific 
act  of  creation  by  a  Supreme  Being,  or  is  the  result  of 
natural  selection.  It  must  have  had  an  adequate  cause, 
or  is  the  result  of  chance  or  blind  law  "working  without 
a  purpose,"  as  Professor  Hackel  confidently  asserts  and 
believes.  The  equality  of  the  sexes  as  to  numbers  is  one 
of  the  great  marvels  of  the  world.  The  male  sex  is  sup- 
posed to  outnumber  the  female  somewhat.  Great  and 
thoughtful  minds  account  for  this  excess  of  the  stronger 
sex  on  the  grounds  of  males  being  more  exposed  to  calam- 
ity and  death  than  females,  as  in  the  case  of  wars,  etc. 
Now  the  point  we  make  is  this,  natural  selection  utterly 
fails  to  account  for  the  existence  and  distribution  of  the 
sexes.  Suppose  on  the  theory  of  natural  selection,  that 
the  male  sex  came  into  being  first,  then  the  inquiry  con- 
fronts Mr.  Darwin  and  his  disciples,  Whence  came  the 
female?  What  was  there  to  select  from?  Or  if  you  sup- 
pose that  the  female  was  first  created,  Whence  came  the 
male?  What  possible  chance  was  there  for  natural  selec- 
tion to  act  ?  It  could  not  operate  on  one  single  individual 
or  sex.  That  individual  or  sex  could  not  give  what  it  did 
not  possess,  which  would  be  a  palpable  absurdity.  Noth- 
ing short  of  a  superintending  Providence  can  rationally 
account  for  the  existence  and  distribution  of  the  sexes 
as  we  find  them.  To  employ  a  phrase  we  have  already 
used  of  Professor  Huxley's,  it  is  safe  to  say  that  this 
single  question  of  sex  in  the  animate  creation  "completely 
shatters"  the  doctrine  of  natural  selection,  which  is  the 
foundation  principle  of  the  Darwinian  theory.  The  Mo- 
saic account  of  the  creation  beautifully  and  philosophically 
accounts  for  the  existence  and  reason  of  the  two  sexes. 
It  says,  "God  made  them  male  and  female."  All  the  living 
facts  of  the  world  harmonize  most  exactly  with  the  Bible 
account  of  the  creation,  and  the  Darwinian  theory  is  at 
utter  variance  with  most  of  the  facts  of  historic  and  pre- 
historic times.  Geology  is  against  Mr.  Darwin,  and  all 
natural  history  or  zoology  is  against  him.  His  hypothesis 
is  based  on  the  most  slender  probabilities,  as  we  have 


EVOLUTION.  295 

shown  again  and  again  in  these  lectures.  Professor 
George  Mivart  styles  it  "Darwin's  brilliant  fallacy."  I 
reserve  for  my  final  lecture  of  this  course  the  concessions 
of  the  leading  evolutionists  and  some  account  of  their  re- 
ligious opinions  as  having  a  bearing  on  evolution.  I  am 
highly  gratified  with  the  large  and  candid  hearing  you 
citizens  of  Spokane  Falls  have  given  this  series  of  lec- 
tures. 

IV. 

Concessions  of  Evolutionists  and  Their  Religious 

Opinions. 

One  of  three  things  is  true  in  regard  to  the  life  of  this 
world:  (1)  Either  all  living  beings  came  into  existence 
by  spontaneous  generation  from  inorganic  matter;  or 
(2)  By  natural  selection;  or  (3)  By  God's  creative  act. 
The  first  is  the  theory  of  Hackel  and  Huxley,  the  second 
of  Darwin,  and  the  third  that  of  Moses. 

Concessions  made  by  the  advocates  of  any  theory  carry 
great  weight  with  them,  whether  the  concessions  are 
forced  from  them,  or  are  inadvertently  or  honestly  made. 
With  these  preliminary  statements,  I  invite  your  thought- 
ful attention  to  a  number  of  these  significant  concessions 
of  the  leading  evolutionists  of  this  age. 

Professor  Tyndall  says  (Fragments  of  Science,  p. 
166)  :  "Those  who  hold  the  doctrine  of  evolution  are  by 
no  means  ignorant  of  the  uncertainty  of  their  data,  and 
they  yield  no  more  than  a  provisional  assent."  This  is  an 
important  admission — their  "data"  is  "uncertain."  They 
do  not  know  whether  their  supposed  facts  are  true  or  not. 
Professor  Huxley  says  (Brit.  Encyclopedia,  Ed.  1876,  Art. 
Biology,  p.  689)  :  "If  the  hypothesis  of  evolution  is  true, 
living  matter  must  have  arisen  from  not  living  matter, 
for  by  the  hypothesis  the  condition  of  the  globe  was  at  one 
time  such  that  living  matter  could  not  have  existed  in 
it,  life  being  entirely  incompatible  with  the  gaseous 
state." 

You  will  remember  that  both  Huxley  and  Hackel  are 
the  strong  supporters  of  the  Nebular  hypothesis,  which 


296  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

holds  that  the  worlds  were  once  in  a  gaseous  state,  and  as 
here  conceded  incompatible  with  the  idea  of  life.  But 
this  eminent  philosopher  admits  that  "living  matter"  then 
"must  have  arisen  from  not  living  matter,"  which  is  ab- 
surd, or  the  same  thing  as  asserting  that  something  came 
from  nothing. 

Huxley  further  concedes  (Brit.  Encyclopedia,  Ed.  1876, 
Art.  Biology,  p.  689)  :  "At  the  present  moment  there  is 
not  the  shadow  of  trustworthy  direct  evidence  that  abio- 
genesis  (spontaneous  generation)  does  take  place,  or  has 
taken  place,  within  the  period  during  which  the  existence 
of  the  globe  is  recorded."  And  Hackel  concedes  that 
spontaneous  generation  is  not  possible  "now,"  and  Huxley 
that  it  never  took  place  within  the  period  during  which 
the  existence  of  the  globe  is  recorded;  therefore  this  view 
of  evolution  stands  or  falls  with  the  establishment,  that 
life  is  the  result  of  "spontaneous  generation."  Huxley 
further  says  that  "the  present  state  of  knowledge  fur- 
nishes us  with  no  link  between  the  living  and  the  not  liv- 
ing." This  confirms  the  remark  of  Tyndall,  that  evolu- 
tionists "are  not  ignorant  of  the  uncertainty  of  their  data." 
Thus  ends  the  theory  of  spontaneous  generation  held  by 
Hackel  and  Huxley.  It  is  in  one  respect  like  the  nebular 
hypothesis,  it  is  in  a  gaseous  state  and  hence  without  life. 
We  now  come  to  the  Darwinian  theory,  or  natural  selec- 
tion. It  is  conceded  that  if  hybrids  are  sterile,  natural 
selection  breaks  down.  That  is,  if  hybrids  are  sterile 
natural  selection  is  incapable  of  originating  new  species. 
In  the  present  state  of  knowledge  among  breeders  the 
sterility  of  hybrids  is  an  admitted  fact.  You  ask,  Who 
makes  the  concession?  Professor  Kolliker  of  Germany, 
and  one  of  the  greatest  living  embryologists,  and  also  Pro- 
fessor Huxley  himself.  Kolliker  says  :  "Great  weight  must 
be  attached  to  the  objection  brought  forward  by  Huxley, 
otherwise  a  warm  supporter  of  Darwin's  hypothesis,  that 
we  know  of  no  varieties  which  are  sterile  with  one  an- 
other, as  is  the  rule  among  sharply  distinguished  animal 
forms.  If  Darwin  is  right,  it  must  be  demonstrated  that 
forms  may  be  produced  by  selection,  which  like  the  present 


EVOLUTION.  297 

sharply    distinguished   animal    forms    are    infertile    when 
coupled  with  one  another,  and  this  has  not  been  done." 

The  purport  of  this  statement  of  Kolliker  is  this: 
Breeders  have  never  succeeded  in  producing  two  other 
distinct  species  from  the  same  stock,  so  different  that  their 
intercourse  with  one  another  will  produce  sterile  hybrids. 
He  positively  affirms  that  "this  has  never  been  done."  In 
reply  to  this  allusion  Huxley  says :  "The  weight  of  this 
objection  is  obvious;  but  our  ignorance  of  the  conditions 
of  fertility  and  sterility,  and  the  want  of  careful  experi- 
ments extending  over  a  long  series  of  years  and  the 
strange  anomalies  presented  by  cross  fertilization  of  many 
plants,  should  all,  as  Mr.  Darwin  has  urged,  be  taken  into 
account  in  considering  it."  This  is  a  very  weak  reply  to 
a  concession  he  had  already  made.  "The  weight  of  the 
objection  is  obvious;"  but  now  our  ignorance  of  the  con- 
ditions of  fertility  and  sterility  is  a  sufficient  answer  to 
the  objection.  Now  this  admission  of  "ignorance  of  the 
conditions  of  fertility  and  sterility"  is  not  much  of  a  com- 
pliment to  the  pretensions  of  Darwin  and  others,  who 
claim  so  much  for  crossing  to  account  for  the  origin  of 
new  species.  But  Huxley  here  says,  "The  want  of  careful 
experiments  extending  over  a  long  series  of  years  should 
be  taken  into  account  in  considering  it."  How  long  a 
series  of  years  does  he  want?  We  have  had  nearly  six 
thousand  years  of  actual  experiment  that  we  know  of. 
And  for  the  last  twenty-five  years  or  more  such  men  as 
Darwin  and  Huxley  have  been  taxing  all  their  ingenuity  to 
produce  new  species  by  crossing,  and  have  also  failed. 
If  nothing  has  occurred  in  the  last  six  thousand  years  to 
overthrow  this  serious  objection  to  the  theory,  it  is  not 
likely  that  a  hundred  thousand  or  a  million  of  years  would. 
But  Hackel  says,  "Some  hybrids  are  not  sterile,"  and 
Joseph  Cook  says,  "That  five  hundred  other  authorities 
and  all  the  proverbs  of  breeders  assert  that  hybrids  are 
sterile."  Whose  testimony  are  we  to  take,  HackePs  or  the 
five  hundred  equally  competent  authorities?  It  is  further 
conceded  that  natural  selection  is  limited  in  its  operations 
to  the  tribe  or  philum  that  is  to  be  improved.    Who  makes 


298  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

this  concession?  Professor  Hackel,  and  it  is  one  of  the 
most  valuable  of  all  the  concessions  made  by  evolutionists. 
He  says  (History  of  Creation,  Vol.  I,  p.  250)  :  "There 
appears,  indeed,  to  be  a  limit  given  to  the  adaptability  (or 
transmutation)  of  every  organism  by  the  type  of  its  tribe 
or  philum.  Thus,  for  example,  no  vertebrate  animals  can 
acquire  the  ventral  nerve-cord  of  articulate  animals,  in- 
stead of  the  characteristic  spinal  marrow  of  vertebrate 
animals.  However,  within  this  hereditary  primary  form, 
within  this  inalienable  type,  the  degree  of  adaptability  is 
unlimited."  That  is,  the  progress  and  change  are  limited 
to  the  tribe  or  philum  to  which  the  individuals  belong; 
therefore  you  can  not  by  natural  selection  or  forced  do- 
mestication change  a  vertebrate  to  an  articulate,  a  ganoid 
to  a  mollusk,  an  oyster  to  a  trout,  nor  a  rat  into  a  lobster ; 
nay,  you  can  not  change  one  vertebrate  into  another  verte- 
brate, as  a  hog  into  a  cow.  The  limit  is  determined  by 
the  type  or  tribe,  and  Hackel  says  the  type  is  "inalien- 
able," so  that  the  concession  is  forced  from  them,  that  a 
really  distinct  species  can  never  be  produced  by  natural 
selection  or  forced  breeding.  Again,  it  is  conceded  that 
most  naturalists  of  this  age  give  up  the  attempt  to  account 
for  the  origin  of  life  without  miraculous  interposition  on 
the  part  of  God.  Who  makes  this  concession?  Ernst 
Hackel.  I  quote  from  his  "History  of  Creation"  (Vol.  I, 
p.  327)  :  "Most  naturalists  even  at  the  present  day  are 
inclined  to  give  up  the  attempt  at  natural  explanation  'of 
the  origin  of  life,'  and  take  refuge  in  the  miracle  of  incon- 
ceivable creation."  After  this  admission,  let  no  man  over- 
flowing with  "philosophical  culture"  flaunt  the  statement 
in  your  face,  as  has  been  done  recently  in  this  city,  that  all 
the  culture  and  science  favors  the  Darwinian  theory  or 
that  of  Professor  Hackel.  Mark,  he  says,  "Most  of  the 
naturalists"  are  against  it.  Mivart  is  against  it,  Dana  is 
against  it,  Thomas  Carlisle  was  against  it,  Gladstone  is 
against  it;  Professor  Henry  Drummond,  a  leading  scien- 
tist, is  against  it;  Joseph  Cook  is  against  it,  William  Cul- 
len  Bryant  was  against  it.  He  says,  "It  would  be  a  much 
easier  task  to  prove  that  monkeys  are  degenerate  men,  than 


EVOLUTION.  299 

to  prove  that  men  are  cultivated  monkeys."  Wilford  Hall 
is  against  it,  who  has  devoted  thirty  years  to  the  study 
of  science  and  philosophy,  and  has  done  more  to  overthrow 
modern  evolution  than  any  living  man.  He  is  to  this  age 
of  infidelity  what  Bishop  Butler  was  to  a  past  age.  Last 
but  not  least,  Professor  Aggasiz  was  against  it  with  all 
his  great  soul  and  intellect.  Just  before  his  death  he  had 
planned  to  make  an  exhaustive  reply  from  a  geologic  and 
zoologic  standpoint  to  Darwinianism,  and  so  announced  it 
through  the  Atlantic  Monthly  in  the  last  article  he  ever 
printed.  He  had  thrown  down  the  gauntlet  before  evolu- 
tion, but  before  he  could  execute  his  cherished  purpose 
death  ensued.  This  was  a  great  loss  to  the  scientific  and 
religious  world,  for  the  reason  that  a  reply  from  one  of 
the  first  naturalists  of  the  world  and  modern  times  would 
have  greater  weight,  though  not  more  able  than  one  from 
a  purely  religious  standpoint.  It  would  have  been  one 
naturalist  pitted  against  another.  It  would  have  been 
"Greek  meeting  Greek."  A  clergyman  meets  this  question 
at  some  disadvantage,  simply  because  he  is  a  clergyman. 
But  there  are  many  clergymen  who  have  given  years  of 
study  to  science — such  men  as  Joseph  Cook,  of  Boston; 
Professor  Henry  Drummond,  Wilford  Hall,  and  many 
others — that  they  might  the  better  meet  atheistic  scien- 
tists on  their  own  ground.  This  they  have  done  in  a  mas- 
terly manner,  and  they  speak  and  write  with  authority. 
Some  people  have  an  idea  that  a  minister  of  the  Gospel 
has  no  business  to  know  anything  but  theology;  but  min- 
isters of  this  age  are  "intermeddling  with  all  knowledge," 
because  infidels  force  them  to.  To  that  extent  infidels 
are  valuable.  While  it  is  true  that  clergymen  are  at  some 
disadvantage  in  a  discussion  like  this,  yet  it  is  equally  true 
that  those  who  addict  themselves  exclusively  to  science  are 
at  an  equal  or  greater  disadvantage  in  discussing  subjects 
in  which  theology  plays  so  important  a  part,  as  it  does  of 
necessity  in  this  question  of  evolution. 

But  once  more  Hackel  concedes  that  man's  so-called 
descent  from  the  monkey  is  a  question  of  speculation,  and 
not  of  observation  or  experiment.     That  is,  it  is  simply 


300  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

deductive,  and  not  inductive.  The  inductive  is  the  scien- 
tific method,  and  the  deductive  is  the  speculative  method. 
Hackel  says :  "The  process  of  deduction  is  not  based  upon 
any  direct  experience.  Induction  is  a  logical  system  of 
forming  conclusions  from  the  special  to  the  general.  .  .  . 
Thus  the  theory  of  descent  is,  without  doubt,  a  great  in- 
ductive law,  experimentally  based  upon  all  biological  expe- 
rience. The  theory,  on  the  other  hand,  which  asserts  that 
man  has  developed  out  of  lower,  and  in  the  first  place  out 
of  apelike,  mammals  is  a  deductive  law,  inseparably  con- 
nected with  the  general  inductive  law."  (History  of 
Creation,  Vol.  II,  p.  357.)  Thus  you  see  from  Hackel's 
admission  that  man's  descent  from  the  ape  is  a  simple 
question  of  speculation,  and  not  of  observation  or  expe- 
rience. Occasionally  deductive  conclusions  from  good  cir- 
cumstantial facts  are  admissible.  For  example,  the  gen- 
eral law  of  gravitation  is  so  well  established,  that  if  a 
new  planet  were  discovered  we  would  be  justified  in  con- 
cluding that  it  came  under  this  general  law.  But  the 
Copernican  system  has  been  proved  by  the  strictest  induc- 
tion. You  predict  that  an  eclipse  will  take  place  at  a  cer- 
tain minute  of  the  day,  and  so  it  does;  so  you  infer  that 
astronomers  know  something  of  the  laws  governing  the 
heavenly  bodies.  Now  if  Messrs.  Hackel  and  Darwin  will 
first  prove  evolution  or  the  descent  of  man  by  the  same 
rule  they  do  the  Copernican  system  of  the  universe,  we 
will  allow  them  to  fill  up  some  of  the  gaps  by  deduction,  as 
in  the  case  of  the  discovery  of  a  new  planet.  That  is,  if 
they  can  by  select  breeding  produce  two  distinct  species 
from  the  same  stock  so  widely  different  that  their  cross- 
ing with  one  another  will  produce  sterile  hybrids,  then 
they  may  be  allowed  to  fill  the  gaps  by  deduction ;  but  not 
till  this  is  done.  Again,  evolutionists  concede  that  natural 
selection  can  not  take  sudden  leaps.  But  we  find  by  the 
unmistakable  facts  of  geology  that  there  are  many  missing 
links  between  the  ape  and  man,  forming  an  immense  gap 
or  leap.  Darwin  in  his  "Descent  of  Man"  (1871)  says: 
"Natural  selection  can  act  only  by  taking  advantage  of 
slight  successive  variations;  it  can  never  take  a  leap,  but 


EVOLUTION.  301 

must  advance  by  short  and  slow  stages.  If  it  could  be 
demonstrated  that  any  complex  organ  existed  which  could 
not  possibly  have  been  formed  by  numerous  successive 
slight  modifications,  my  theory  would  absolutely  break 
down."  (Origin  of  Species,  1859.)  Well,  here  is  the 
demonstration  of  a  complex  organ  being  formed  by  one 
vast  leap,  if  man  descended  from  the  monkey.  Between 
man  and  the  monkey  there  are  many  missing  links,  or 
immense  gaps.  Forty  years  and  more  have  been  assidu- 
ously employed  by  naturalists  and  geologists  to  discover 
these  missing  links  and  fill  these  gaps,  but  no  trace  of  them 
is  to  be  found.  Professor  Dana,  probably  the  greatest 
living  geologist,  says  this  about  it:  "No  remains  of  fossil 
man  bear  evidence  to  less  perfect  erectness  of  structure 
than  in  civilized  man,  or  to  any  nearer  approach  to  the 
man  ape  in  essential  characteristics.  This  is  the  more 
extraordinary  in  view  of  the  fact  that  from  the  lowest 
limits  in  existing  man  there  are  all  possible  gradations 
up  to  the  highest,  while  below  that  limit  there  is  an  abrupt 
fall  (or  leap)  to  the  ape  level,  in  which  the  cubic  capacity 
of  the  brain  is  one-half  less.  If  the  links  ever  existed, 
their  annihiliation  without  trace  is  so  extremely  improb- 
able that  it  may  be  pronounced  impossible.  Until  some 
are  found  science  can  not  assert  that  they  ever  existed." 
And  Darwin  admitted  "that  the  absence  of  these  links  is 
amazing !"  Of  course  it  is  to  a  man  who  is  claiming  de- 
scent from  the  ape.  This  is  a  demonstration  as  clear  as 
that  two  and  two  make  four,  that  there  is  a  vast  gap  be- 
tween the  man  and  the  ape,  and  natural  selection  can 
never  bridge  the  chasm;  consequently  his  theory  does 
"absolutely  break  down."  It  is  conceded  also  that  if  any 
living  creature  has  organs  or  peculiarities  that  are  of  no 
use  "in  the  struggle  for  existence,"  the  theory  of  "natural 
selection  must  break  down,"  as  "natural  selection  acts 
only  for  the  preservation  of  what  is  beneficial  and  profit- 
able, and  the  extirpation  of  what  is  injurious"  or  "useless." 
These  are  Darwin's  emphatic  and  oft-repeated  statements. 
The  brain  of  the  most  inferior  man  is  double  the  capacity 
of  the  ape,  and  of  consequence  is  double  the  size  needed 


302  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

in  the  struggle  for  existence.  In  other  words,  he  ought 
to  be  able  to  cope  with  the  ape,  his  nearest  relative,  with 
as  small  a  brain  if  he  had  only  been  as  well  protected 
with  hair  as  the  ape.  This  increase  of  brain  did  not  add 
anything  to  his  warmth.  And  if  "he  lived  on  roots"  "in 
his  primeval  state,"  he  could  have  done  much  better  in 
his  prone  than  in  his  erect  position.  "The  struggle"  would 
have  been  less.  And  as  he  needed  to  climb  trees  for  much 
of  his  living,  his  aborted  tail  was  a  great  loss  to  him,  for 
monkeys  make  singular  use  of  their  tails  in  climbing.  If 
the  ape,  chimpanzee,  and  orang-outang,  being  tailless  and 
belonging  to  the  monkey  tribe,  do  not  need  tails  "in  the 
struggle  for  existence,"  then  Darwin's  theory  signally 
breaks  down  in  the  opposite  direction;  for  if  these  can 
get  along  without  tails,  then  they  are  not  necessary  to  the 
monkeys  that  have  them,  for  he  affirms  that  if  you  can  find 
any  organ  that  is  of  no  use  "in  the  struggle  for  existence," 
then  his  "theory  must  break  down."  The  bushy  tail  of 
the  fox,  the  camel's  hump,  the  elk's  enormous  and  un- 
wieldy horns,  the  enormous  fatty  tail  of  the  mountain- 
sheep,  and  the  absence  of  upper  teeth  in  cows,  and  the  de- 
fenseless condition  of  little  children,  having  neither  the 
instinct  nor  covering  of  the  common  pup,  are  clear  ex- 
amples. But  I  now  am  prepared  to  show  that  Darwin 
concedes  that  he  attached  too  much  importance  to  natural 
selection,  or  survival  of  the  fittest.  In  his  "Descent  of 
Man"  (Vol.  I,  p.  152)  he  says:  "I  now  admit,  after  read- 
ing Nageli  on  plants,  and  the  remarks  by  various  authors 
with  respect  to  animals,  that  in  the  earlier  editions  of  my 
'Origin  of  Species'  I  probably  attributed  too  much  to  the 
action  of  natural  selection,  or  survival  of  the  fittest.  I 
had  not  formerly  sufficiently  considered  the  existence  of 
structures  which  appear  to  be,  as  far  as  we  can  judge, 
neither  beneficial  nor  injurious,  and  this  I  believe  to  be 
one  of  the  greatest  oversights  as  yet  detected  in  my 
works."  Also  "Descent  of  Man"  (Vol.  II,  p.  38)  he  says: 
"No  doubt  man,  as  well  as  every  other  animal,  presents 
structures  which,  as  far  as  we  can  judge  with  our  little 
knowledge,  are  not  now  of  any  service  to  him,  nor  have 


EVOLUTION.  303 

been  so  during  any  former  period  of  his  existence,  either 
in  his  relation  to  his  general  conditions  of  life  or  of  one 
sex  to  the  other.  Such  structures  can  not  be  accounted 
for  by  any  form  of  selection,  or  by  the  inherited  effects 
of  the  use  or  disuse  of  parts."  This  admission  is  fatal  to 
the  whole  theory  of  evolution  as  taught  by  Charles  Dar- 
win. Natural  selection,  or  the  survival  of  the  fittest,  is 
cardinal  in  his  hypothesis.  It  is  to  evolution  what  the 
foundation  is  to  the  building.  Sap  that,  and  the  whole 
structure  falls.  While  Darwin  felt  himself  compelled  to 
make  this  concession,  he  uses  quite  a  little  strategy  in  try- 
ing to  escape  the  consequences  of  the  admission  by  this 
adroit  remark,  "There  are  structures  which  appear,  so  far 
as  we  can  judge,  that  are  neither  beneficial  nor  injurious" 
to  the  being  having  them.  While  he  seems  to  be  candid 
in  the  admission  "that  he  had  not  formerly  sufficiently 
considered"  these  structures,  yet  before  he  gets  through 
with  the  concession  he  completely  nullifies  it  by  asserting 
that  these  structures  "are  neither  beneficial  nor  injurious." 
This  is  simply  absurd.  A  thing  must  be  either  beneficial 
or  injurious.  It  is  of  necessity  one  or  the  other.  Darwin 
intended  to  make  an  honest  concession,  or  he  did  not. 
When  such  philosophers  as  Nageli  and  other  eminent  men 
presented  facts  that  seriously  damaged  his  theory,  he  was 
reluctantly  compelled  to  admit  that  in  his  "Origin  of 
Species"  he  had  "probably  attributed  too  much  to  natural 
selection,"  and  then  makes  the  awkward  attempt  to  re- 
cover himself  by  saying  that  these  structures  were  "neither 
beneficial  nor  injurious."  Professor  St.  George  Mivart, 
an  eminent  evolutionist  of  the  Owen  school,  makes  this 
significant  remark  about  the  above  concessions  of  Mr. 
Darwin :  "The  hypothesis  of  natural  selection  originally 
put  forth  as  the  origin  of  species  has  been  really  aban- 
doned by  Mr.  Darwin  himself,  and  is  untenable.  It  is  a 
misleading  positive  term  denoting  negative  effects,  and 
as  made  use  of  by  those  who  would  attribute  to  it  the 
origin  of  man  is  an  irrational  conception — a  puerile  hy- 
pothesis." (Lessons  from  Nature.)  Huxley  speaks  highly 
of  Mivart's  philosophical  ability.     He   (Mivart)   thinks 


304  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

the  term  "survival  of  the  fittest"  misleading,  and  that 
man's  descent  from  the  ape  is  a  "puerile  hypothesis." 
This  theory  then,  in  the  light  of  solid  facts  and  Darwin's 
concessions,  has  utterly  collapsed.  Joseph  Cook  says,  in 
view  of  Darwin's  concessions,  that  "he  is  not  a  good  Dar- 
winian." Darwin  concedes  that  the  first  or  a  few  living 
beings  must  have  been  the  work  of  a  specific  creation  by 
God.  This  concession  he  makes  in  his  earlier  works, 
which  we  have  quoted  again  and  again  in  these  lectures. 
This  is  about  all  Moses  claims,  one  or  two  of  each  kind. 

Darwin  also  concedes  that  on  his  theory,  that  it  is  im- 
possible to  account  for  the  first  origin  of  life,  which  he 
calls  "a  hopeless  inquiry."  He  says  (Descent  of  Man, 
p.  66)  :  "In  what  manner  the  mental  powers  were  first 
developed  in  the  living  organisms  is  as  hopeless  an  inquiry 
as  how  life  itself  first  originated.  These  are  problems 
for  the  distant  future,  if  they  are  ever  to  be  solved  by 
man."  How  palpably  inconsistent  such  talk  after  his 
former  admission  of  a  necessary  miraculous  creation  of 
the  "first  few  beings !"  Darwin  also  concedes  that  his 
former  beilef  was  that  of  the  distinct  and  specific  creation 
of  species.  He  says  (Ibid.  p.  61)  :  "I  was  not,  how- 
ever, able  to  annul  the  influence  of  my  former  belief, 
then  almost  universal,  that  each  species  had  been  pur- 
posely created.  1  have  at  least,  as  I  hope,  done  good  serv- 
ice in  aiding  to  overthrow  the  dogma  of  separate  cre- 
ations." Let  it  be  remembered  that  several  years  had 
intervened  between  the  time  of  his  "former  belief"  and 
his  later  belief.  It  must  have  been,  then,  when  he  enter- 
tained the  "almost  universal"  belief  of  specific  acts  of  the 
creation  of  the  species,  that  he  admitted  that  "the  first  few 
beings"  must  have  been  the  result  of  miraculous  power 
and  intelligent  purpose,  for  he  here  explicitly  declares 
his  change  of  belief,  and  hopes  he  has  "done  good  service 
in  aiding  to  overthrow  the  dogma  of  separate  creations." 

The  above  quotations  also  clearly  reveal  the  marked 
evolution  or  change  in  Mr.  Darwin's  religious  views,  from 
simple  deism  towards  atheism,  of  which  he  is  charged  by 
a  number  of  his  careful  readers.    In  his  earlier  works,  as 


BVOLUTION.  305 

we  have  seen,  he  emphatically  declares  that  the  first  "few 
living  beings"  must  have  been  the  act  of  God.  He  as 
emphatically  declares  in  his  later  works,  that  to  account 
"how  life  first  originated"  is  a  "hopeless  inquiry,"  and  is 
"a  problem  for  the  distant  future  to  solve."  When  a  deist, 
or  a  simple  theist,  he  hesitated  not  to  say  that  the  Creator 
must  have  originated  "the  first  few  living  beings;"  but 
when  he  became  an  Agnostic,  or  an  Atheist,  he  tells  you 
that  to  account  for  life  is  as  hopeless  an  inquiry  as  to  tell 
how  "the  mental  powers  were  first  developed  in  the  lower 
organisms,"  and  every  one  can  see  the  hoplessness  of  that 
inquiry  on  his  hypothesis.  He  rejoices  that  he  has  been 
able  to  overthrow  the  dogma  "of  his  early  deism,"  of 
"separate  creations,"  and  a  great  many  intelligent  people 
of  this  age  fail  to  see  any  good  reason  to  rejoice  over  that. 
You  observe,  then,  that  Mr.  Darwin  at  his  death  stood 
quite  on  the  ground  of  Professor  Hackel,  of  bald  atheism, 
and  there  is  a  broad  gulf  between  deism  and  atheism.  We 
have  been  thus  explicit  in  noting  Mr.  Darwin's  change  of 
belief  at  this  point,  because  it  came  up  in  this  concession 
of  his,  that  you  can  not  account  "for  the  first  origin  of 
life"  on  his  theory,  and  because  we  will  have  to  do  with 
his  religious  beliefs  further  on.  Joseph  Cook  with  great 
care  has  discovered  fifty-one  concessions  of  evolutionists 
of  the  different  schools,  and  nearly  every  one  is  fatal  to 
the  theory  held  by  Hackel  and  Darwin.  In  the  aggregate 
they  are  overwhelming,  and  leave  absolutely  nothing  in 
the  system  that  is  vital.  It  is  conceded  by  all,  except 
Huxley,  that  the  entire  theory  is  based  on  mere  prob- 
ability; it  is  speculative  and  not  experimental.  Thus  I 
have  tried  to  fulfill  my  promise  to  overthrow  evolution 
with  the  chief  weapons  of  its  advocates.  You  will  judge 
of  my  success.  I  think  it  pertinent  to  spend  a  few  minutes 
at  the  close  of  these  lectures  in  speaking  of  the  religious 
opinions  of  these  leading  scientists.  I  do  so,  because  every 
man's  theories  are  liable  to  be  colored  by  his  religious  be- 
liefs. There  is  antecedently  a  strong  presumption  that 
this  is  likely  to  be  the  case.  Huxley,  Tyndall,  and  Spencer 
are  Agnostics;  Professor  Hackel  is  an  open  and  avowed 
20 


3o6  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

Atheist,  and  Darwin  has  also  been  called  an  Atheist,  and 
I  think  there  are  strong  grounds  for  the  charge.  Thomas 
Carlisle,  who  personally  knew  the  Darwins,  says :  "I  have 
known  three  generations  of  the  Darwins,  grandfather, 
father,  and  sons,  atheists  all.  The  brother  of  the  present 
famous  naturalist,  a  quiet  man,  who  lives  not  far  from 
here,  told  me  that  among  his  grandfather's  effects  he  found 
a  seal  engraven  with  this  legend,  'Omnia  ex  conchis' 
(everything  from  a  clamshell).  I  saw  the  naturalist  not 
many  months  ago,  and  told  him  that  I  had  read  his  'Origin 
of  Species'  and  other  books,  and  that  he  had  by  no  means 
satisfied  me  that  men  were  descended  from  monkeys,  but 
he  had  gone  far  toward  persuading  me  that  he  and  his 
so-called  scientific  brethren  had  brought  the  present  gener- 
ation of  Englishmen  very  near  to  monkeys.  A  good  sort 
of  a  man  is  this  Darwin,  and  well  meaning,  but  with  very 
little  intellect.  Ah !  it  is  a  sad  and  terrible  thing  to  see 
nigh  a  whole  generation  of  men  and  women  professing  to 
be  cultivated  looking  around  in  a  purblind  fashion,  and 
finding  no  God  in  the  universe.  I  suppose  it  is  a  reaction 
from  the  reign  of  cant  and  hollow  pretense,  professing  to 
believe  what  in  fact  they  do  not  believe.  And  this  is  what 
we  have  got,  all  things  from  spawn,  the  gospel  of  dirt 
the  order  of  the  day.  The  older  I  grow — and  now  I  stand 
on  the  brink  of  eternity — the  more  comes  back  to  me  the 
sentence  in  the  Catechism  which  I  learned  when  a  child, 
and  the  fuller  and  deeper  its  meaning  becomes,  'What  is 
the  chief  end  of  man?  To  glorify  God  and  enjoy  Him 
forever.'  No  gospel  of  dirt,  teaching  that  we  are  de- 
scended from  frogs,  through  monkeys,  can  ever  set  that 
aside."  (Extract  from  a  letter  published  in  Scotland.) 
This  is  what  a  great  and  thoughtful  man  said  as  he  stood 
on  the  brink  of  eternity.  Is  it  too  much  to  say  that  the 
two  greatest  works  of  Darwin  "Origin  of  Species"  and 
"Descent  of  Man,"  and  the  two  of  Hackel,  "Evolution  of 
Man"  and  "History  of  Creation,"  were  written  mainly  in 
the  interest  of  Infidelity?  I  think  very  few  will  question 
it,  therefore,  in  studying  these  works  this  should  be 
taken  into  the  account.    But  it  may  be  said  that  Christians 


EVOLUTION.  307 

are  as  likely  to  be  biased  as  Infidels  and  Atheists.  Very- 
true  ;  but  that  does  not  affect  the  point  I  make,  but  rather 
confirms  it.  These  men  have  been  strongly  tempted  to 
employ  arguments  and  assumptions  that  they  would  not 
have  done  had  it  been  simply  a  pure  question  of  science. 
They  were  after  Moses,  and  they  ransacked  creation  to 
find  resemblances  that  would  throw  discredit  on  the  Bible 
account  of  creation,  and  we  challenge  them  to  present  one 
solid  demonstrated  fact  to  prove  that  the  different  species 
of  living  beings  is  the  result  of  spontaneous  generation 
or  of  natural  selection.  Now  I  ask  you  to  scan  the  titles 
of  these  much  lauded  books:  "Origin  of  Species,"  "De- 
scent of  Man,"  "Evolution  of  Man,"  "History  of  Cre- 
ation," Think  of  it !  Who  but  Moses  ever  undertook  to 
give  a  history  of  creation  till  these  gentlemen  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  conceived  the  idea?  Does  their  prox- 
imity or  remoteness  to  that  event  qualify  them  especially 
for  such  an  undertaking?  The  world  for  about  forty-five 
centuries  was  well  satisfied  with  the  Mosaic  accounts. 
Moses,  a  man  of  wide  culture,  and  "learned  in  all  the  wis- 
dom" of  the  most  learned  people  in  the  world,  lived  forty- 
five  centuries  nearer  the  creation  than  Charles  Darwin 
and  Ernst  Hackel,  and  had  access  to  materials  for  such 
a  history  that  is  not  allowed  these  gentlemen.  But  some 
of  "the  philosophical  culture"  of  the  last  twenty-five  or 
thirty  years  have  become  dissatisfied  with  the  Bible  ac- 
count, and  have,  as  Carlisle  told  Darwin,  resorted  to  the 
"gospel  of  dirt"  and  "frog  spawn,"  "sea  ooze,"  and  all 
that  kind  of  stuff  to  account  for  the  descent  of  man.  It 
is  not  an  uncommon  thing  for  the  skepticism  of  our  day 
to  charge  Christianity  with  superstition,  especially  in  re- 
gard to  this  question  of  creation;  but  I  submit  that  the 
legends  of  the  darkest  nations  concerning  the  creation  are 
infinitely  in  advance  of  the  "frog  spawn"  and  "sea  ooze" 
theory  in  point  of  rationality,  and  the  Mosaic  account  is 
a  million  times  more  rational  and  dignified  than  either. 
In  conclusion,  I  make  this  point  against  modern  evolution : 
its  moral  tendency  is  most  dangerous.  It  strikes  a  fatal 
blow  at  man's  accountability.     The  human  mind  is  so 


3o8  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

constituted  that  make  men  believe  that  they  came  into 
being  by  chance,  or  by  the  operation  of  blind,  unintelli- 
gent law,  as  both  Darwin  and  Hackel  again  and  again 
assert,  and  you  thereby  do  away  with  the  foundation  of 
moral  responsibility.  You  convince  me  that  I  owe  my 
origin  to  frog  spawn  and  to  monkeys,  and  I  immediately 
infer  that  I  am  not  more  responsible  than  they.  I  am  an 
effect  from  an  irresponsible  cause,  and  the  effect  can  not 
be  greater  than  the  cause  that  produced  it.  This  is  the 
almost  inevitable  tendency  of  this  loose  philosophy  of 
evolution,  and  it  is  to  be  seriously  deprecated  on  that 
account,  if  for  no  other.  It  is  not  only  false,  but  danger- 
ous !  When  Thomas  Paine  submitted  the  manuscript  of 
his  "Age  of  Reason"  to  Dr.  Franklin  for  his  opinion  as  to 
the  propriety  of  its  publication,  Franklin  replied:  "Mr. 
Paine,  do  not  unchain  the  tiger.  If  human  nature  is  so 
hard  to  control  with  all  the  moral  restraints  thrown  about 
it  by  Christianity,  what  would  it  be  without  them?"  "I 
think  I  speak  advisedly,  and  charitably  also,  when  I  say 
that  the  works  referred  to  are  the  most  dangerous  books 
that  have  appeared  in  a  century.  They  are  so  because 
of  the  prestige  of  their  authors  as  great  naturalists,  and 
because  they  do  not  avowedly  profess  to  assail  Christianity 
as  Mr.  Paine  and  Mr.  Ingersoll  do.  We  know  what  to 
expect  from  them;  but  the  reader  is  not  likely  at  first  to 
suspect  Darwin,  Hackel,  and  Huxley,  while  they  profess 
to  be  strictly  dealing  with  science.  But  no  cautious 
reader  competent  to  weigh  arguments  and  facts  can 
long  be  ignorant  of  the  main  purpose  of  these  books. 
They  are  aimed  at  Moses — they  are  aimed  at  the 
Bible.  They  had  never  appeared  in  their  present  form 
but  for  the  Mosaic  account  of  the  creation.  I  have  been 
charged  in  this  city  with  "camping  with  Moses."  I  am 
proud  of  his  company.  I  am  only  sorry  that  I  am  not 
more  worthy  of  such  companionship.  Moses  to-day  is 
camping  in  the  serene  heights  of  angelic  beatitudes,  and 
I  do  not  believe  that  his  serene  and  cultured  soul  has  been 
in  the  least  ruffled  by  the  coarse  personalities  and  shafts 
hurled  at  him  by  infidels,  agnostics,  and  atheists.    I  do 


EVOLUTION.  309 

not  suppose,  from  his  high  vantage  ground,  that  he  enter- 
tains any  fears  that  the  utmost  development  of  all  true 
science  will  ever  seriously  affect  his  theory  of  creation. 
He  can  afford  to  await  the  verdict  of  the  coming  ages 
for  the  perfect  solution  of  all  the  facts  of  creation.  Would 
that  we  were  as  well  assured  as  he.  It  would  be  greatly 
better  for  the  truth  in  its  future  conquests.  I  now  thank 
you  for  this  patient  hearing,  hoping  we  all  may  learn 
therefrom  not  to  be  too  hasty  in  accepting  every  new  phase 
of  so-called  science,  and  that  we  may  learn  not  to  be  too 
nervous  when  atheistic  scientists  blow  their  horns  of  new 
discoveries.  When  the  smoke  of  battle  clears  away,  as 
it  will,  you  will  be  able  better  to  see  what  execution  has 
been  done,  if  any. 


"WOMEN  IN  THE  LEGISLATIVE  COUNCILS  OF 
THE  CHURCH." 

[A  reply  to  Professor  James  Strong  IX,.  D.,  on  the  admission  of 
women  to  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
before  the  Ministerial  Club,  held  in  this  city,  under  the  leadership  of 
Bishop  Vincent,  D.  D.  Dr.  Strong's  opposition  was  so  strong  that  the 
majority  of  the  club  felt  it  ought  to  be  answered  at  the  time,  and  by  a 
vote  I  was  requested  to  reply.    Here  follows  the  reply.] 

I  am  in  hearty  sympathy  with  the  great  movement 
now  before  the  Church.  I  therefore  have  whatever  ad- 
vantage there  is  in  this.  My  conviction  is  the  result  of 
a  careful  examination  of  both  sides  of  this  question.  I 
propose  to  be  candid,  courteous,  and  manly  in  my  treat- 
ment of  this  living  issue.  I  hope  to  meet  my  opponent's  ar- 
guments fairly,  and  not  skip  the  difficulties  raised  by  them. 

Dr.  Harrington  has  so  calmly  and  clearly  traversed 
the  Biblical  and  exegetical  ground,  that  I  need  say  but 
little  by  way  of  Scripture  authority  for  our  position.  Dr. 
Strong  tells  us  that  she  is  "a  'helper,  his  assistant  and 
co-ordinate/  not  his  servant,  nor  his  master."  If  she  is 
co-ordinate  with  Adam,  she  is  of  course  of  equal  rank; 
therefore  neither  his  servant  nor  master,  but  his  equal. 
The  word  rendered  "helper"  occurs  nineteen  times  in  the 
Bible — fourteen  times  to  God,  and  twice  to  woman ;  never 


310  STORY  OF  MY  UFB. 

once  to  a  servant  or  a  subordinate.  In  this  fact  there  is 
nothing  in  the  Scriptures  to  warrant  the  idea  of  subordi- 
nation and  secondariness,  that  some  of  the  exegetes  are 
reading  into  this  word  czer.  I  think  the  Doctor  is  liable 
to  this  charge.  We  must  not  forget  that  the  word  "helper" 
was  applied  to  her  before  she  lapsed  from  her  sinless  state. 
After  the  Fall  the  Doctor  tells  us  that  she  took  a  "second- 
ary rank  in  matters  of  government  and  authority."  If  sec- 
ondary, then  it  can  not  be  co-ordinate,  as  the  Doctor  con- 
ceded that  it  was  before  the  Fall.  Why  this  degradation 
from  co-ordinate  to  secondary  rank  ?  We  are  told  because 
she  "was  first  deceived"  and  is  "the  weaker  vessel." 
But  how  long  was  it  before  Adam  did  the  same  thing,  and 
as  appears  with  less  excuse?  Was  he  less  a  sinner  than 
she?  Is  God  a  respecter  of  persons  or  of  sexes?  Now  it 
seems  to  me  that  such  arguments  hardly  rise  to  the  dig- 
nity of  respectability.  What  is  the  inference  then?  It  is 
this:  that  interpretation  can  not  be  relied  on  that  makes 
God  a  respecter  of  persons  simply  on  the  ground  of  the 
distinction  of  sex. 

But  the  Doctor,  in  the  next  sentence  or  two,  tells  us 
that  "her  original  rights  were  not  taken  away,"  but  turned 
"into  another  channel."  How  could  this  be,  when  he  de- 
clares that  she  took  "a  secondary  rank  in  matters  of  au- 
thority and  government"  after  her  lapse?  If  she  was  co- 
ordinate before  her  fall,  as  he  concedes  she  was,  and  sec- 
ondary after,  then  her  rights  must  have  changed  with  her 
rank.  But  I  do  not  believe  that  you  are  warranted  in 
asserting  that  her  rank  was  changed  any  more  by  the  Fall 
than  was  man's.  I  think  the  dual  headship  remains  the 
same  as  before  the  Fall,  except  that  they  suffered  equally 
by  the  moral  catastrophe. 

Dr.  Strong  makes  this  remarkable  statement:  "Noth- 
ing new  has  taken  place  in  the  nature  or  history  of  woman 
in  herself  or  in  the  Church  as  such  to  require  or  justify 
such  a  wide  departure  from  all  precedent,  usage,  and  well- 
established  law."  I  think  he  is  quite  correct  in  saying 
that  "nothing  new  has  taken  place  in  the  nature  of  woman 
in  herself  as  such ;"  but  there  has  been  a  most  marked  and 


WOMEN  IN  LEGISLATIVE  COUNCILS.     311 

radical  change  in  the  last  fifty  years  as  to  the  treatment 
she  has  received  at  the  hands  of  the  Church.  For  cen- 
turies her  voice  was  not  tolerated  in  the  Church  in  pro- 
miscuous assemblies.  Now  there  is  a  pretty  large  liberty 
granted  her  in  this  respect.  And  I  submit  that  there  was 
enough  in  the  history  of  the  Church  "to  justify  and  re- 
quire" a  larger  liberty  than  was  allowed  her  both  by 
"precedent,  usage,  and  well-established  ecclesiastical  law" 
for  several  centuries  last  past.  And  Methodism  has  been 
a  most  important  factor  in  lifting  woman  out  of  her  state 
of  vassalage  and  degradation.  This  is  true  history, 
Doctor. 

I  am  obliged  to  Dr.  Strong  for  this  truthful  and  frank 
statement:  "It  can  not  be  successfully  denied  .  .  .  that 
in  every  essential  respect  woman  is  the  equal,  the  partner, 
the  coadjutor  of  man,  that  she  is  numerically  even  a  larger 
constituent  in  the  Church,  and  certainly  not  a  whit  behind 
her  brother  in  piety  and  loyalty;  that  she  possesses  prac- 
tical sagacity,  indeed  a  quicker  insight,  a  warmer  affection, 
and  a  more  self-sacrificing  devotion." 

Woman  with  equal  advantages  is  every  way  the  equal 
of  man,  except  in  physical  strength.  Now  I  lay  down  this 
self-evident  proposition:  Whatever  faculties  and  capa- 
bilities the  Creator  has  endowed  His  intelligent  and  moral 
creatures  with,  He  intended  them  to  use.  If  the  fish  has 
fins,  they  were  given  to  swim  with ;  if  the  birds  have  wings, 
they  were  to  fly  with.  The  question  of  sex  does  not  enter 
into  the  matter.  And  it  is  true  that  disuse  may  in  time 
destroy  the  faculty,  as  in  the  case  of  eyeless  fishes  and  the 
ostrich.  Woman's  mental  and  moral  faculties  are  to  be 
used  in  every  field  when  such  faculties  are  adapted  and 
called  for.  This  is  the  rational  basis  of  this  whole  ques- 
tion of  woman's  place  in  the  world.  And  Dr.  Harrington 
has  shown  that  the  Bible  has  sufficiently  recognized  it  in 
the  cases  of  Miriam,  Deborah,  Huldah,  and  Anna  in  the 
Old  Testament,  and  in  the  New  in  the  cases  of  the  daugh- 
ters of  Philip,  the  prophecy  of  Joel,  Priscilla,  and  Phoebe. 

I  regret  some  things  that  are  so  conspicuous  in  the 
otherwise  able  article  of  Dr.  Strong.     These  are  such  as 


312  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

reflect  on  the  sincerity  of  those  who  differ  from  him,  and 
their  ignorance  of  the  subject  and  their  inability  to  see 
the  consequences  he  and  his  friends  see  in  it.  I  think  the 
the  Doctor  has  hardly  been  courteous  to  his  opponents. 
Let  me  quote : 

"Let  men  delight  to  bark  and  bite,"  etc. 

The  women  who  desire  "to  vote  for  a  petticoat  govern- 
ment over  a  petticoat  constituency,"  etc.  "The  whole 
special  pleading  respecting  women  is  an  exhibition  of 
ignorance  and  uncritical  exegesis."  He  hopes  the  laymen 
and  ministers  will  not  "be  so  insane  as  to  perpetrate"  so 
indecorous  a  thing  as  to  admit  woman  into  the  General 
Conference.  "It  is  a  manifest  injustice  to  women  to  make 
them  cats'-paws  for  the  mere  aggrandizement  of  Church." 
"The  strongest  objection  to  female  legislation  is,  that  it 
degrades  woman  herself.  It  places  her  in  an  unfeminine 
attitude,  and  that  in  a  most  conspicuous  position.  .  .  . 
It  lowers  herself  in  dignity  and  grace,  as  surely  as  if  she 
assumed  pantaloons  or  sported  a  moustache."  "A  public 
woman  \"    "The  very  word  is  a  synonym  of  infamy." 

This  leads  me  to  remark  that  Dr.  Strong  and  Dr. 
Buckley  and  some  other  prominent  men  of  the  opposition 
have  again  and  again  raised  questions  that  are  not  rele- 
vant to  the  issue  before  us.  Such  questions  as  the  min- 
istry, ordination  of  women,  and  the  question  of  female 
suffrage.  I  maintain  these  question  are  not  in  the  issue 
before  us;  it  is  simply  shall  women  be  admitted  to  the 
General  Conference  as  lay  delegates?  Dr.  Strong  will 
tell  you  that  he  admitted  this  in  the  beginning  of  his  paper. 
True.  But  he  went  almost  immediately  and  raised  these 
very  questions  and  devoted  the  larger  part  of  his  discus- 
sion to  these  irrelevant  matters.  But  they  insist  that  these 
are  logically  involved  in  the  main  issue.  This  is  especially 
true  of  Drs.  Strong  and  Buckley.  Now  if  we  do  not  meet 
what  they  regard  as  their  strongest  objections,  they  charge 
us  with  unfairness  and  as  unable  to  meet  their  arguments. 
But  I  promised  in  the  outset  that  I  would  not  skip  the 
difficulties  raised  by  our  brethren.     I   then  accept   the 


WOMEN  IN  LEGISLATIVE  COUNCILS.     313 

irrelevant  challenge.  When  they  ask  me  if  I  am  in  favor 
of  woman's  preaching  and  ordination,  I  answer,  Yes,  if 
God  calls  them  to  this  work,  and  they  have  the  endow- 
ments of  "gifts,  grace,  and  usefulness."  I  do  not  believe 
that  sex  is  a  barrier  to  the  sacred  office  when  I  remember 
Miriam,  Deborah,  Huldah,  the  daughters  of  Philip,  Pris- 
cilla,  and  Phcebe.  Mr.  Wesley  was  asked  by  Mrs.  Fletcher 
if  he  thought  women  should  ever  preach,  and  he  replied 
that  if  God  assuredly  called  her  he  would  not  fight  against 
God,  or  something  to  that  effect.  Would  you  favor  her 
ordination?  Certainly,  if  she  is  called  of  God.  I  do 
not  consider  the  mere  laying  on  of  hands  as  essential  to 
a  call,  or  to  real  calling  to  the  ministry.  It  imparts  no 
virtue  or  efficacy  to  the  candidate.  So  far  as  propriety 
goes,  it  is  as  appropriate  in  one  case  as  in  the  other. 

You  ask  me,  "Are  you  in  favor  of  female  suffrage?" 
I  am  decidedly  in  favor  of  it,  both  in  Church  and  State. 
I  do  not  believe  that  the  Creator  ever  intended  sex  as  a 
bar  to  suffrage.  Is  a  woman  qualified  to  cast  an  intelligent 
ballot?  Is  she  an  American  citizen?  If  she  is,  she  is 
entitled  to  vote  on  questions  of  highest  interest  to  her. 
I  am  an  American,  and  believe  with  all  my  soul  in  the 
American  maxim,  "No  taxation  without  representation." 
I  believe  in  the  natural  right  both  of  men  and  women 
to  vote.  I  believe  among  these  natural  rights  are  "life, 
liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness,"  and  the  right  of 
franchise  and  representation  are  involved  in  these.  The 
effort  to  show  that  voting  is  not  a  natural  right,  but  simply 
accidental,  is  a  fallacy;  "a  distinction  without  a  differ- 
ence." But  the  disfranchisement  of  woman  because  of 
the  distinction  of  sex  is  a  flagrant  injustice.  The  only 
reason  she  can  not  vote  is  because  she  is  a  woman.  Her 
misfortune  is  her  sex.  She  is  an  American  citizen,  with- 
out the  highest  privilege  of  an  American.  She  is  Amer- 
ican born,  but  worse  off  than  an  alien.  Note  her  classifi- 
cation !  There  are  six  classes  in  this  country  that  are 
disfranchised:  little  children,  idiots,  criminals,  most  In- 
dians, the  Chinese,  and  the  white  women  of  America. 
And  these  women  are  the  best  qualified  citizens,  if  general 


3i4  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

intelligence,  loyalty,  and  virtue  are  to  be  counted  in  the 
Government.  Why  are  they  denied  the  vote?  Simply 
because  they  are  women.  But  you  reply  that  most  women 
do  not  want  to  vote.  A  sufficient  reply  is,  Many  men  do 
not  care  to  vote.  But  would  you  deny  other  men  the 
vote  because  many  men  do  not  care  for  it?  If  it  is  only 
the  right  of  a  dozen  that  settles  the  question.  There  are 
several  millions  of  women  who  do  want  to  vote,  and  it 
is  their  just  right.  It  is  a  flagrant  inconsistency  and  in- 
justice of  a  free  government  to  disfranchise  her  women 
citizens.  We  talk  of  our  Government  as  a  democracy, 
as  a  Republic.  Let  us  see.  The  present  population  of  the 
United  States  is  about  65,000,000.  Of  these  about 
11,000,000  are  voters.  Not  more  than  6,000,000  vote  at 
ordinary  elections;  54,000,000,  or  about  four-fifths,  have 
no  vote.  As  the  women  outnumber  the  men,  there  are 
about  13,000,000  of  suitable  age  and  qualification  to  vote. 
Of  the  11,000,000  who  vote,  a  large  per  cent  can  neither 
read  nor  write;  another  large  per  cent  can  read  and  not 
write,  or  can  write  their  names  and  not  read.  These  two 
classes  of  voters  are  an  easy  prey  to  unprincipled  dema- 
gogues. And  then  there  are  2,000,000  or  3,000,000  of  liq- 
uor manufacturers  and  sellers  who  completely  control  the 
rest  of  the  voters  in  the  interest  of  the  most  gigantic  evil 
and  curse  that  ever  threatened  the  life  and  perpetuity  of  a 
free  Government.  The  11,000,000  of  women  in  this  country 
have  no  voice  in  the  suppression  of  a  curse  that  is  damning 
her  sons  and  daughters,  her  brothers  and  fathers.  Why? 
Because  the  dominant  parties  prefer  to  listen  to  the  whisky 
element,  rather  than  to  her  pitiful  and  ineffectual  en- 
treaties. She  has  no  rights  that  they  feel  bound  to  respect. 
Rev.  Alfred  Wheeler  tells  us  that  all  the  women  have  to 
do  is  to  ask  for  what  they  want,  and  they  get  it.  Far 
from  it.  The  noble  women  who  have  waited  on  our 
political  conventions  time  and  again  and  made  respectful 
request  for  help  against  the  saloon  curse  have  been  rudely 
snubbed,  or  their  requests  wholly  disregarded.  They  have 
no  vote  themselves  and  no  representatives  in  our  legis- 
lative halls  or  Congress  that  care  to  represent  them  in  that 


WOMEN  IN  LEGISLATIVE  COUNCILS.     315 

which  is  of  the  most  vital  interest  to  them.  You  talk  of 
the  women  being  represented  by  their  fathers  and  broth- 
ers !  It  is  utterly  untrue  in  any  proper  sense.  I  tell 
you  now  and  here  that  this  country  is  more  like  an  oli- 
garchy than  a  democracy.  It  is  governed  at  this  hour,  to 
all  intents  and  purposes,  by  less  than  3,000,000  of  men, 
and  they  are  the  brewers  and  saloon  men  of  America. 
Do  you  wonder  why  I  am  in  favor  of  woman's  suffrage 
in  the  light  of  these  burning  facts  ?  Who  are  the  bitterest 
opponents  to-day  of  female  suffrage?  They  are  the  saloon 
men.  Why?  They  know  if  the  11,000,000  of  women  in 
this  country  had  the  ballot  that  their  business  would  be 
doomed  in  less  than  two  years.  I  know  and  you  know 
how  the  great  majority  of  the  women  would  vote  on  that 
question.  I  am  decidedly  in  principle  and  policy  or  ex- 
pediency in  favor  of  the  enfranchisement  of  women. 

But  our  dear  brethren  mostly  in  the  East  fear  the  re- 
sult of  the  vote  on  the  women  themselves.  They  will 
unsex  themselves.  They  will  become  rough  and  coarse 
like  men.  I  think  these  fears  are  groundless.  We  have 
tried  them  here  and  in  Wyoming.  I  never  witnessed  such 
good  behavior  at  the  polls  as  when  the  women  voted. 
What  is  there  in  the  mere  act  of  going  to  a  place  of  voting 
and  casting  a  simple  slip  of  paper  that  could  be  consid- 
ered coarse  or  indelicate?  Your  wives  and  daughters 
daily  go  to  the  post-office  and  get  the  mail  under 
more  unfavorable  circumstances  than  at  the  polls.  That 
would  be  two  or  three  times  in  a  year,  and  the  other  is  a 
daily  matter.  Had  I  the  time  I  could  give  you  the  best  of 
testimony  from  governors,  judges  of  courts,  and  other 
prominent  men  of  the  good  behavior  of  the  n^en  and  the 
womanly  delicacy  of  the  women  who  have  voted  again 
and  again  in  Washington  and  Wyoming  in  the  last  few 
years. 

But  if  it  is  such  a  dangerous  thing  to  female  delicacy 
and  purity,  why  have  you  consented  to  submit  this  ques- 
tion to  a  vote  of  the  Church,  when  two-thirds  of  its  mem- 
bers are  women?  This  is  a  whim  in  my  opinion,  but  an 
honest  one. 


316  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

The  enfranchisement  of  the  Negro  in  this  Nation  has 
done  much  to  make  him  respectable  among  the  politicians, 
because  they  want  his  vote.  If  11,000,000  of  women 
were  enfranchised,  a  committee  of  intelligent  women  would 
be  treated  with  profound  respect,  and  they  could  com- 
mand the  political  conventions  to  pay  some  respect  to  their 
rights  and  wishes,  but  now  they  have  no  influence  because 
they  have  no  vote  . 

It  has  been  insinuated  again  and  again  that  those  who 
favor  woman's  admission  to  the  General  Conference  are 
in  sympathy  with  anarchists,  infidel  free-lovers,  and  that 
public  life  makes  women  indelicate.  I  resent  the  insinu- 
ation, and  declare  that  the  women  who  represent  the 
Methodist  Church  in  our  Lay  Electoral  Conferences  on 
our  missionary  and  temperance  platforms  are  as  pure  and 
delicate  as  any  women  in  Methodism  who  never  appeared 
upon  a  platform.  The  women  whom  we  have  intrusted 
with  these  official  and  public  positions  have  acted  with 
great  decorum  and  propriety,  and  have  done  their  work 
well  and  efficiently,  and  have  never  up  to  this  time  disap- 
pointed us.  We  have  no  good  grounds  to  assume  that 
they  would  if  they  should  be  admitted  to  that  grave 
body. 

I  call  your  attention  to  this  statement  of  Dr.  Strong: 
"Now  let  it  never  be  forgotten  nor  for  a  moment  over- 
looked that  women  voluntarily  came  into  the  Church 
under  this  law  of  restriction,  well  known  and  universally 
maintained.  What  right  have  they,  or  any  men  in  their 
behalf,  to  demand  a  fundamental  change  of  this  order  and 
economy?"  Of  course  they  came  in  voluntarily  under 
this  restriction.  But  you  ask,  What  right  have  they,  or 
any  men  in  their  behalf,  to  ask  for  a  change  of  the  Re- 
strictive Rules?  I  modestly  reply,  The  Right  of  Pe- 
tition. The  Constitution  of  the  Methodist  Church  has 
provided  for  a  change  in  her  fundamental  rules.  That  is 
what  this  vote  contemplates.  Does  Dr.  Strong  claim  in- 
fallibility in  the  polity  and  government  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  ?  You  might  be  led  to  think  so,  when 
he  puts  this  question,  "What  right  have  the  women  or  men 


WOMEN  IN  LEGISLATIVE  COUNCILS.     317 

to  ask  for  this  change?"  He  calls  this  change  a  revo- 
lution. 

But  Dr.  Strong  makes  a  most  surprising  announcement 
in  the  close  of  his  debate.  It  is  this:  "Whenever  the 
majority  of  women  desire  admission  to  the  General  Con- 
ference I  would  be  in  favor  of  granting  their  request 
promptly  and  fully,  but  only  out  of  courtesy  or  deference." 
Then  a  few  sentences  on  he  says :  "But  mark  now :  when 
the  women  walk  in  at  the  front  door  of  the  General  Con- 
ference I,  if  a  member,  would  prefer  to  step  out.  I  could 
not  endure  to  witness,  much  less  be  a  party  to  such  a 
personal  humiliation,  and  so  flagrant  a  public  scandal." 
Remember,  he  first  questions  the  right  of  the  women  or 
their  friends  to  change  the  order  and  economy  of  the 
Church,  because  he  says  it  is  the  "uniform  prohibition  of 
nature,  the  Bible,  and  all  Church  history." 

I  can  not  think  that  our  venerable  brother  could  have 
carefully  weighed  these  words  sufficiently  when  he  wrote 
them.  He  says  if  a  majority  of  the  women  desired  it,  he 
would  promptly  and  fully  vote  for  their  admission  out  of 
courtesy  and  deference,  when  he  positively  stated  that  he 
conscientiously  believes  that  "it  is  prohibited  by  the  Word 
of  God,  the  dictates  of  nature,  and  against  all  wise  history 
and  usage  in  the  Church  and  State  in  all  the  past."  If  I 
believed  all  that  conscientiously,  I  could  not  vote  for  their 
admission  if  they  all  desired  it.  But  after  voting  for  their 
admission  out  of  courtesy  because  they  simply  desired  it, 
it  would  be  an  unusual  manifestation  of  courtesy  "to  step 
out  of  the  back  door  when  they  entered  the  front  door"  by 
his  vote.  That  would  look  rather  more  like  revolution 
than  the  women  asking  for  admission  in  a  constitutional 
way,  I  submit. 


318  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

"The  Higher  Criticism  "  was  treated  very  ably  at  the  Columbia  Dis- 
trict Ministerial  Association  by  Rev.  W.  S.  Turner,  and  by  request  we 
begin  the  publication  of  his  paper  this  week.  It  will  well  repay  the  read- 
ing.— Columbia  Christian  Advocate. 

Brethren,  I  do  not  claim  to  be  an  adept  in  philology 
and  Bible  introduction,  but  I  claim  to  have  common  sense 
and  a  little  modesty.  I  profess  to  be  able  to  read  and 
understand  what  the  first  scholars  of  the  past  and  present 
have  to  say  about  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  the 
books  of  the  Bible.  I  know  what  the  destructive  critics 
claim,  and  what  the  mediating  critics  teach;  and  I  know 
what  the  conservatives  hold.  I  have  learned  that  it  is 
safe  to  take  what  specialists  say  cum  multis  granis  salts 
(or  with  many  grains  of  salt).  They  often  lack  in  the 
judicial  qualifications  to  be  safe  guides.  They  are  apt  to 
have  some  pet  theories  that  they  are  anxious  to  establish, 
and  being  specialists  they  are  more  likely  to  be  narrow 
and  self-conceited  than  men  who  are  not  specialists. 
They  easily  become  hobbyists  and  enthusiasts.  We  have 
noted  examples  of  quackery  in  medicine.  Some  man  pro- 
fesses that  he  has  made  an  important  discovery,  and 
declares  that  it  will  absolutely  cure  every  ailment  known 
to  men.  Henry  George  believes  that  he  has  solved  all 
the  intricate  questions  of  political  economy.  I  have  known 
some  professors  in  Greek  and  Latin,  and  some  in  mathe- 
matics, who  imagined  that  scarcely  anything  else  was 
worthy  of  attention  outside  their  departments  in  college. 
This  is  the  conspicuous  tendency  and  liability  with  spe- 
cialists in  any  department  of  knowledge.  The  place  of  the 
specialist,  then,  is  not  on  the  judicial  bench,  but  on  the 
witness  stand.  I  am  in  favor  of  specialists — their  work 
is  very  valuable  in  their  fields,  but  they  are  not  to  pre- 
sume to  assert,  as  they  often  do,  that  thoughtful  and 
reading  men  are  not  allowed  to  question  their  facts,  or 
rather  oftener  their  assumptions  and  conjectures.  I  be- 
lieve to-day  that  we  are  warranted  in  the  assertion  that 
there  are  nine  assumptions  for  every  well-established  fact 
that  the  higher  critics  have  brought  against  the  Bible 


THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM.  319 

record;  especially  is  this  true  of  the  destructive  critics. 
It  is  a  very  bold  and  suspicious  attitude  which  the  critics 
of  this  day  occupy,  standing  as  they  do  some  thirty  cen- 
turies from  the  date  of  some  of  these  documents,  and 
passing  positive  judicial  decision  on  their  contents  with- 
out access  to  the  original  source  from  which  the  books 
were  compiled,  if  they  were  compiled,  and  I  modestly 
submit  that  these  same  specialists  have  no  possible  access 
to  those  sources  to  determine  that  fact,  if  it  be  a  fact. 
That  is  a  task  so  immense  that  nothing  short  of  the  super- 
natural can  compass  it;  yet  these  critics  have  the  au- 
dacious effrontery  to  insist  that  they  know  more  about 
these  facts  than  Moses,  Isaiah,  and  Daniel,  who  were 
contemporary  with  many  of  the  facts,  and  had  ready 
access  to  the  sources  from  whence  they  wrote  those  his- 
tories. And  not  only  so,  but  some  of  these  same  critics 
have  insinuated  that  these  sacred  writers  have  recorded 
these  events  after  they  transpired,  ani  palmed  them  off 
for  prophecies,  and  that  many  things  they  wrote  were 
forgeries. 

Now,  a  word  respecting  the  Mediating  School  of  Crit- 
ics before  I  proceed.  I  do  not  question  their  honesty  in 
their  professed  search  for  the  truth  of  this  burning  ques- 
tion; still  I  am  compelled  to  feel  that  they  are  standing 
on  untenable  and  dangerous  ground.  My  reasons  for  this 
conviction  are  these:  First,  because  many  of  them  being 
scholars  of  more  or  less  repute,  they  are  liable  from  the 
pride  of  scholarship  to  be  tempted  to  enter  this  hazardous 
field,  because  so  many  eminent  German  rationalistic  schol- 
ars are  found  in  it.  Secondly,  they  are  using  some  of  the 
same  arguments  in  their  apologetics  that  the  Infidel  crit- 
ics are  employing  for  a  different  purpose.  Another  reason 
for  this  conviction  is,  that  skeptics  and  those  who  deny  the 
divinity  of  Christ  and  scout  the  miracles  and  prophecies 
of  the  Bible  are  greatly  delighted  at  the  attitude  of  the 
mediating  critics. 

Now,  lest  I  be  suspected  of  overstating  the  attitude 
of  the  leading  destructive  critics,  I  will  quote  from  a  lec- 
ture of  one  of  the  foremost  destructive  critics  lately  de- 


32o  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

livered  in  the  city  of  Glasgow,  Scotland,  Dr.  Otto 
Pfleiderer,  of  the  University  of  Berlin.  Here  we  have 
some  of  his  assertions  in  this  lecture : 

He  said  that  "all  marvelous  incidents  related  of  Jesus 
in  the  gospel  histories  are  pure  inventions,  added  at  a  late 
day;  that  Paul  believed  only  in  the  spiritual,  and  not  in 
the  bodily,  resurrection  of  Jesus."  He  holds  that  "there 
has  been  no  supernaturally  inspired  revelation.  All  man's 
religious  ideas  have  been  obtained  by  the  efforts  of  his 
own  reason.  The  Bible  is  simply  an  ancient  religious 
classic,  no  different  in  kind  from  many  other  books.  The 
gospel  records  are  largely  unreliable.  As  for  the  Gospel 
of  John,  it  is  in  no  sense  an  historical  writing,  but  a  didac- 
tic treatise,  which  derived  its  theological  ideas  chiefly 
from  Philo  and  invested  them  in  the  form  of  a  life  of 
Jesus,  as  a  sort  of  religious  fiction.  Christ  was  merely 
an  unusual  religious  genius,  a  purely  human  evolution, 
differing  only  in  degree,  if  indeed  in  that,  from  other 
religious  leaders.  Although  He  had  some  grand  thoughts 
about  God  and  life,  He  was,  it  seems,  rather  a  goody- 
goody  sort  of  a  saint,  simple-minded  and  well-meaning, 
but  considerably  deluded.  Indeed,  He  was  like  the  r<- 
us,  not  without  His  faults;  He  was  not  spotless,  sinless, 
guiltless.  Some  things  which  He  is  recorded  to  have 
claimed  for  Himself  can  not  possibly  have  been  true.  He 
is  not  indisputably  fit  to  be  a  file  leader  and  head  of  the 
column  in  humanity's  hopeful  march  toward  a  better 
future.  .  .  .  Redemption  is  an  empty  dream,  atone- 
ment an  exploded  notion,  which  Paul  erroneously  held; 
there  is  no  forgiveness  of  sins.  Jesus  did  not  rise  from 
the  tomb,  Mary  did  not  meet  her  Lord  in  the  garden,  He 
did  not  walk  and  talk  with  two  disciples  on  the  Emmaus 
road,  nor  show  His  wound  prints  to  Thomas,  nor  eat  with 
His  disciples  on  the  shore;  for  the  Syrian  stars  look 
down  to-night  on  His  unknown  and  hopeless  grave." 
This,  and  more  of  the  same  kind  of  stuff  were  distinctly 
stated  and  inevitably  implied  in  these  lectures  at  Edin- 
burgh, and  are  now  in  English  print.  Though  Pfleiderer 
is  Professor  of  Theology  in   Berlin  University,  he  has 


THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM.  321 

uttered  in  these  lectures  trash  that  can  not  be  surpassed 
by  Mr.  Ingersoll,  the  apostle  of  American  infidelity. 

Before  proceeding  to  the  real  issue,  I  wish  to  say  that 
I  shall  appear  to  some  disadvantage  because  of  the  brief 
time  allowed  me  on  so  broad  a  theme  as  my  subject 
involves.  I  will  be  compelled  to  give  only  a  few  ex- 
amples of  the  fallacious  arguments  of  the  critics. 

They  first  attack  the  Pentateuch.  Their  claim  is  that 
it  can  not  be  the  work  of  Moses.  They  think  they  see  evi- 
dence in  these  five  books  of  different  authors'  styles. 
They  infer  that  they  must  be  composite.  For  example, 
we  are  told  there  are  in  Genesis  two  accounts  of  creation, 
and  they  must  have  been  written  by  different  authors. 
Others,  that  they  were  compiled  from  different  sources 
by  one  editor  or  redactor.  Equally  competent  judges  do 
not  see  two  distinct  accounts,  but  a  simple  enlargement 
of  the  same  account.  If  there  are  two  separate  accounts 
as  held  by  the  critics,  their  redactor  or  editor  must  have 
been  a  conspicuous  ignoramus  not  to  have  noticed  this 
distinction,  or  else,  he  considered  them  a  continued  ac- 
count of  the  same  fact.  The  latter  is  the  rational  view. 
This  is  one  of  the  assumptions  that  the  critics  ask  us  to 
consider  a  settled  fact.     You  see  how  modest  they  are? 

Again,  they  endeavor  to  set  aside  the  long-established 
and  cumulative  proofs  that  Moses  is  the  author  of  Deuter- 
onomy. They  insist  that  Deuteronomy  could  not  have 
been  written  by  him,  because  the  law  was  disregarded, 
and  "could  not  have  been  in  existence"  in  the  time  of 
Moses.  Also  that  he  could  not  have  written  it,  because 
in  it  there  is  an  account  of  his  own  death.  This  latter 
reason  has  been  answered  so  often  that  it  is  strange  the 
critics  should  urge  it  again.  The  last  chapter  of  Deuter- 
onomy undoubtedly  belongs  to  the  Book  of  Joshua,  and 
was  not  carefully  separated  therefrom  in  the  arrangement 
of  the  books;  but  the  other  objection  to  Moses  being  its 
author  is  frivolous  and  without  foundation;  viz.,  where 
a  law  is  generally  disregarded  the  inference  is  that  it 
could  not  have  been  a  statute  law.  This  view  of  the 
critics  is  the  result  of  a  false  theory  of  progress  or  evo- 
21 


322  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

lution.  The  modern  evolution  theory  adopted  by  many  is 
that  the  past  must  be  inferior  to  the  present  in  knowledge 
and  virtue.  These  ideas  started  by  Darwin  and  Herbert 
Spencer  have  been  largely  adopted  by  the  progressives 
in  interpreting  the  Bible.  But  this  is  a  conspicuous  fal- 
lacy, and  is  not  borne  out  by  history  or  fact.  It  is  tanta- 
mount to  saying  that  Egypt,  Greece,  and  Rome  never  knew 
greater  intelligence,  power,  and  culture  than  they  have 
to-day.  It  is  the  same  as  saying  that  the  Christian  Church 
from  the  time  of  Constantine  to  Martin  Luther  was  in  a 
purer  state  than  during  the  first  three  centuries.  It  as- 
sumes that  the  idolatrous  period  of  the  Jewish  Church 
could  not  have  succeeded  a  pure  monotheistic  age,  that 
literature  and  historical  accuracy  can  know  no  decline  or 
lapses.  Its  postulate  is  this,  then,  when  a  law  is  gener- 
ally disregarded  or  violated :  that  a  statute  could  not  have 
existed.  We  have  Sabbath  laws  in  this  State  on  our  stat- 
utes that  are  generally  violated.  Is  it  to  be  inferred  then 
that  we  have  no  such  statute?  The  history  of  our  world 
is  largely  a  history  of  fearful  lapses  and  apostacies,  and 
many  of  them  of  long  duration  and  without  the  recovery 
and  reformation  of  the  nations  and  governments  where 
they  took  place.  This  is  true  in  literature,  art,  and  morals. 
Much  of  this  doctrine  of  evolution  of  upward  and  bene- 
ficial tendency  is  largely  myth.  The  rude  religions  of  the 
heathens  are  regarded  by  many  of  the  critics  as  the  rude 
germs  of  the  best  that  we  have  in  the  Bible.  The  doctrine 
of  evolution,  when  applied  to  governments,  literature,  and 
religion,  has  more  of  gush  and  braggadocio  than  solid 
sense  and  fact  in  it,  and  sounds  egotistically  smart  to  the 
self-conceit  and  pride  of  many  moderns.  I  desire  to  re- 
fresh the  memories  of  such  a  little  by  asking  them  to 
read  over  with  care  and  thoughtful  analysis  once  more 
the  Decalogue  that  was  given  to  the  race  not  less  than 
thirty  centuries  ago;  and  ask  themselves  candidly,  Has 
any  human  government  improved  on  that  as  a  civil  and 
moral  code?  How  is  that  for  a  rude  age  such  as  Moses 
lived  in?  There  is  not  a  civil  government  in  the  world 
to-day  that  has  not  borrowed  from  Moses  whatever  is 


THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM.  323 

valuable  and  praiseworthy  in  its  fundamental  laws.  The 
greatest  jurists  of  this  and  the  last  century  are  prodigal 
of  their  praises  of  this  Jewish  code,  and  confess  their 
great  indebtedness  to  it.  Gentlemen,  that  law  is  super- 
human, and  so  Moses  to  whom  it  was  given  declares.  It 
is  not  an  evolution,  but  a  specific  creation  of  God.  The 
principles  of  right  and  wrong  are  eternal  and  unchange- 
able. They  do  not  admit  of  improvement,  or  evolution 
if  you  prefer  that  word.  I  believe  in  the  evolution  of 
getting  nearer  these  principles  and  improving  ourselves 
morally  and  intellectually,  for  we  are  greatly  below  them. 
I  would  like  some  the  progressives,  as  they  are  pleased 
to  style  themselves,  who  claim  that  we  can  get  along  with- 
out the  supernatural  by  dint  of  reason  alone,  to  mention 
some  of  the  men  in  their  ranks  who  are  the  peers  or  su- 
periors of  Moses  and  Joseph  and  Daniel  of  the  long  ago, 
when  the  race  was  in  its  swaddling  clothes.  According  to 
their  theory,  Moses,  Joseph,  and  Daniel  ought  to  be  as 
inferior  in  law  and  statesmanship  to  their  great  and  good, 
as  the  infant  on  its  mother's  breast  is  inferior  to  a  Newton 
or  a  Humboldt.  Unless  Moses,  Joseph,  and  Daniel  were 
myths,  there  is  no  solid  foundation  for  the  evolution  theory 
as  they  interpret  it. 

While  I  am  on  this  point  raised  by  the  critics,  I  would 
like  to  refer  to  some  of  the  teachings  in  a  book  sent  me 
by  my  ancient  friend,  Edward  Oldgreene.  The  author 
of  that  book  undertakes  to  apologize  for  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, or  more  properly  for  God,  for  the  permission  of 
wrongs  appearing  in  the  old  Book,  such  as  human  slavery 
and  polygamy  and  divorce.  He  says  that  God  winked 
at  these  evils,  which  the  enlightened  conscience  of  this 
age  would  not  tolerate.  A  sufficient  reply  to  that  inter- 
pretation is  this,  that  many,  nay  most,  of  the  wisest  inter- 
preters of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  past,  and  most  of  the 
wisest  and  ablest  interpreters  of  the  present,  hold  this 
view,  that  the  Old  Testament  is  a  faithful  and  unvar- 
nished history  of  those  times,  and  simply  relates  the  facts 
without  approving  them  in  the  connection  in  which  they 
appear,  but  certainly  and  positively  condemns  them  in 


324  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

the  Decalogue  and  impliedly  condemns  them  in  other 
places.  Silence  is  not  to  be  interpreted  always  as  ap- 
proval. 

Take  the  question  of  divorce,  which  is  prolific  of  so 
much  evil  in  our  progressive  age.  Christ,  when  ques- 
tioned by  the  disciples  concerning  it,  made  this  reply, 
"Moses,  because  of  the  hardness  of  your  hearts  suffered 
you  to  put  her  away,  but  it  was  not  so  in  the  beginning." 
That  is,  Moses  gave  no  positive  command  in  the  case.  He 
could  not  make  a  law  directly  opposite  to  the  law  of  God 
which  said,  "What  God  hath  joined  together  let  not  man 
put  asunder."  God's  law  limits  divorce  to  the  single  case 
of  adultery.  But  Moses,  because  of  the  hardness  of  their 
hearts,  in  his  weakness,  for  he  was  not  infallible,  toler- 
ated what  God  forbade.  In  the  rude  primal  age,  as  the 
critics  hold  it,  you  see  divorce  and  slavery  were  not  sanc- 
tioned- though  practiced  because  of  the  wickedness  of 
those  in  power.  Do  you  believe  that  God  sanctioned  the 
enslavement  of  the  Israelites  in  Egypt?  It  is  easy  to 
comprehend  how  polygamy  and  slavery  seemed  to  be 
tolerated  in  those  times.  The  kings  and  princes  and  the 
rich  who  were  invested  with  power  were  the  ones  who 
practiced  these  sins  most,  and  set  the  example  before  their 
subjects.  We,  as  a  nation,  have  had  fearful  slavery  and 
not  a  little  polygamy  in  our  day;  not  because  the  people 
at  large  sanctioned  it,  but  because  "the  powers  that  be" 
winked  at  and  connived  at  it.  It  would  not  be  true  if 
some  thousand  or  more  years  from  now  some  skeptic 
should  say  how  God  and  His  people  sanctioned  slavery 
and  polygamy  and  bloodshed  in  Christian  America.  It 
was  a  rude  age,  and  they  knew  no  better.  You  would 
reply,  "Away  with  such  stuff."  It  was  then  as  now,  there 
were  few  men  like  Elijah  and  Nathan  the  prophet.  You 
remember  that  John  the  Baptist  lost  his  head  for  reprov- 
ing Herod  for  living  in  adultery.  There  are  some  moral 
heroes  now,  but  the  moral  cowards  greatly  outnumber 
the  heroes.  In  view  of  these  reflections,  it  is  not  im- 
modest for  me  to  suggest  that  these  assumptions  and  con- 
jectures of  the  critics  respecting  the  authorship  of  the 


THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM.  325 

Pentateuch  deserve  about  as  much  credence  as  the  at- 
tributing the  works  of  Shakespeare  to  Lord  Bacon.  The 
frequency  and  reverence  with  which  the  evangelists,  the 
apostles,  and  Christ  Himself  refer  to  "the  law  and  the 
prophets"  as  of  Divine  inspiration,  and  to  Moses,  Isaiah, 
and  Daniel  as  the  authors,  ought  to  have  great  weight 
in  settling  the  authenticity  and  genuineness  of  the  Sacred 
Books.  It  is  also  affirmed  most  positively  and  with  remark- 
able frequency  by  many  of  the  Old  Testament  writers  that 
these  are  the  writings  of  Moses.  Joshua  mentions  it  three 
times,  the  Book  of  Judges  once,  First  Chronicles  once, 
Second  Chronicles  twice;  in  all  over  thirty  times  by  Old 
Testament  writers.  Now,  according  to  the  critics,  all  these 
positive  recognitions  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are 
to  have  less  weight  than  the  conjectures  and  assumptions 
of  a  few  modern  scholars  living  over  three  thousand  years 
from  the  times  and  scenes  of  this  early  writer.  Gentle- 
men, this  is,  I  suggest,  too  heavy  a  demand  to  make  on  the 
credulity  of  an  intelligent  and  thoughtful  age. 

But  it  may  be  asked,  Have  not  the  higher  critics 
pointed  out  a  large  number  of  facts  warranting  their 
views?  My  answer  is  emphatically,  No.  Every  case  of 
apparent  discrepancy  has  been  fairly  and  ably  answered 
again  and  again  by  Biblical  scholars  every  way  their  equals 
in  scholarship.  Yet  they  insist  on  "threshing  over  the 
old  straw"  of  their  theories. 

The  critics  next  attack  Isaiah.  For  twenty-five  hun- 
dred years  Isaiah  "had  remained  unchallenged  and  un- 
suspected." Within  the  last  century  some  person  on  a 
still  hunt  for  something  throwing  discredit  on  the  au- 
thenticity of  the  Bible  imagined  that  he  saw  that  the  last 
half  of  this  book  might  have  been  written  by  some  one 
else  than  Isaiah.  Was  it  a  mere  accident  that  the  latter 
half  should  have  appeared  to  be  more  favorable  to  a  super- 
natural prophecy,  or  did  that  idea  seem  to  favor  the  Di- 
vine pretensions  of  the  book  more  than  the  first  part? 
We  leave  that  suggestion  with  the  candid  reader  to  decide. 
It  is  marvelously  strange  that  in  twenty-five  centuries 
of  careful  study  by  capable  and  honest  students  of  sacred 


326  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

history  the  unity  of  Isaiah  had  never  before  been  sus- 
pected. The  critics  concede  that  Isaiah  wrote  the  first 
part.  Well  then,  if  he  wrote  the  first  half,  and  it  can  be 
shown  that  supernatural  foresight  is  clearly  seen  in  the 
predictions  of  that  part,  it  is  unfortunate  for  the  destruc- 
tive critics'  purpose,  because  of  the  supernatural  character 
of  the  last  half  of  the  prophecy.  This  must  be  so,  unless 
the  critic  can  show  beyond  a  doubt  that  Isaiah  wrote  the 
predictions  after  the  events  mentioned  in  the  first  part 
had  transpired.  Have  they  done  this?  We  are  not  aware 
of  it. 

Note  the  predictions  of  the  first  half.  In  Isaiah  viii, 
1-5,  the  prediction  is  made  that  Syria  and  Israel  are  to  be 
subdued  by  Assyria.  In  chapter  ix,  2-7,  the  prediction 
of  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  and  the  enlargement  of  His 
kingdom  is  made.  Was  this  prediction  made  after  the 
events?  In  chapter  xxi,  1-10,  the  downfall  of  Babylon 
by  the  Medes  and  Persians  is  foretold;  in  chapter  xxii, 
1-14,  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  is  foretold  with  particularity. 
Was  this  written  after  the  events?  In  chapter  xxxix  the 
Babylonian  captivity  is  predicted.  These  are  only  a  part 
of  the  supernatural  predictions  that  are  made  in  the  first 
part  of  Isaiah,  and  fulfilled  to  the  letter  as  appears  from 
sacred  and  profane  history. 

But  the  unity  of  Isaiah  is  well  established  in  the  judg- 
ment of  competent  scholars  against  the  assumptions  and 
guesses  of  the  critics  about  Isaiah's  authorship  of  this 
book.  If  it  could  be  proved  that  some  unknown  person 
wrote  the  latter  half  of  this  book,  it  would  not  help  the 
critics'  cause  in  the  least,  seeing  special  predictions  made 
therein  pertain  particularly  to  the  coming,  sufferings,  and 
death  of  Christ;  and  unless  the  critics  can  prove  that  this 
latter  half  was  written  later  than  the  year  of  our  Lord 
33  their  cause  is  lost. 

If  there  ever  was  a  prophetic  book  in  the  sacred  canon 
without  the  name  of  its  author,  this  is  the  first  instance 
of  an  anonymous  prophetic  book.  The  critics  have  a 
Herculean  task  on  their  hands  to  reconcile  their  "unknown 
prophet"  with  the  past  history  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 


THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM.  327 

to  fix  its  date.  Notice  this  fact,  that  Isaiah  is  mentioned 
twenty-two  times  in  the  New  Testament,  and  eleven  times 
in  connection  with  the  last  half  of  this  book.  In  view  of 
these  facts,  who  do  you  think  have  the  first  claims  to 
credence  in  this  contention,  the  modern  guessers,  or  those 
sacred  writers  who  lived  much  nearer  Isaiah's  time? 

A  few  words  in  regard  to  Daniel's  authorship  of  the 
book  bearing  his  name.  One  thing  is  beyond  dispute : 
This  book  records  a  number  of  prophecies  that  have  been 
remarkably  fulfilled.  The  predictive  element,  if  true,  is 
a  miracle  of  knowledge,  and  must  be  supernatural.  The 
contention  of  some  of  the  critics  is  that  the  book  was  writ- 
ten after  the  events  transpired.  The  statement  in  Mat- 
thew's Gospel,  xxiv,  15,  "When  ye  therefore  shall  see  the 
abomination  of  desolation  spoken  of  by  the  prophet  Dan- 
iel," amply  refutes  the  statement  of  the  critics.  This 
statement  of  Matthew  was  more  than  fifty  years  after  the 
death  of  Christ,  reference  being  made  to  the  destruction 
of  the  temple. 

The  seventy  weeks  of  Daniel  were  literally  fulfilled 
in  the  advent,  the  sufferings,  and  death  of  Christ,  and  in 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Romans.  Of  course 
no  sane  man  can  hold  that  the  predictions  were  made 
after  the  events  had  transpired.  Daniel  was  a  true 
prophet,  if  he  was  not  so  officially.  He  was  a  civil  officer, 
and  did  not  devote  his  entire  time  to  prophetic  duties. 
So  David  was  both  prophet  and  king.  That  the  Book  of 
Daniel  was  in  existence  before  the  date  assigned  it  by 
the  critics  is  positively  asserted  by  Josephus.  He  says 
more  of  the  books  justly  believed  to  be  Divine  were  writ- 
ten after  the  time  of  Artaxerxes,  king  of  Persia,  and  this 
was  two  hundred  and  fifty  years  before  the  time  assigned 
to  it  by  the  critics.  Which  has  the  greater  weight,  the 
conjectures  of  the  critics,  or  the  positive  statement  of 
Josephus? 

But  once  more.  The  critics  tell  us  Daniel  could  not 
be  the  author  of  this  book  because  he  says  Belshazzar  was 
king  of  Babylon,  and  that  Nebuchadnezzar  was  his  father ; 
but  in  point  of  fact  the  critics  say  Nabonidus  was  the  last 


328  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

king,  and  not  related  to  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  one  Bel- 
sharuzur  was  his  son.  Daniel's  Belshazzar  is  nowhere 
else  mentioned;  therefore  it  became  a  butt  of  ridicule 
with  unbelievers,  as  was  Isaiah's  Sargon  before  him.  But 
what  do  we  find?  Botta  in  his  excavations  of  an  As- 
syrian mound  found  the  palace  of  Sargon,  and  Isaiah  is 
vindicated.  More  recently  the  discovery  of  the  cylinder 
of  Nabonides  has  solved  the  mystery  of  Belshazzar,  and 
Daniel  is  vindicated.  Never  mind,  brethren,  God  and 
the  Assyriologists  will  take  care  of  Daniel  against  all  the 
conjectures  of  the  critics. 

There  is  one  point  I  have  not  seen  mentioned  anywhere 
that  is  worthy  of  note  in  this  discussion.  It  is  this: 
where  there  is  a  conflict  of  statement  of  historic  facts 
between  sacred  and  profane  historians,  the  critics  assume 
that  the  profane  historian  can  not  be  in  error,  but  the 
sacred  writer  must  stand  aside  till  God  and  future  devel- 
opments vindicate  him,  as  in  the  case  of  Isaiah's  Sargon 
and  Daniel's  Belshazzar.  Now,  we  protest  against  this 
discrimination  of  the  higher  critics  in  favor  of  the  profane 
historian  as  utterly  unjust  and  unwarranted.  Why  should 
he  be  less  inerrant  than  the  sacred  historian?  Will  the 
critics  give  an  intelligent  reason? 

We  are  told  that  the  prophecy  of  Daniel  can  not  be 
older  than  150  B.  C.  But  in  chapter  viii  we  have  Daniel's 
2,320  days  and  in  chapter  ix  his  70  weeks,  which  mean 
490  years  B.  C.  How  can  they  reconcile  this  with  150 
B.  C.  ?  But  these  prophecies  take  in  their  vast  sweep 
the  advent,  death,  and  glorious  triumphs  of  Christ's 
Church  in  the  ages  to  come,  and  if  some  Daniel  wrote 
these  only  150  years  B.  C,  he  must  have  been  super- 
naturally  endowed. 

"The  scientic  method,"  so  called,  of  the  higher  critics, 
is  the  reverse  of  God's  method.  Jesus  interprets  the  Old 
Testament  by  the  New.  God  declares  that  the  natural 
men  discerneth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit,  for  they  are 
spiritually  discerned.  Jesus  says :  "I  thank  Thee,  O 
Father,  because  Thou  hast  hid  these  things  from  the  wise 
and  prudent,  and  hast  revealed  them  unto  babes."     Is  it 


THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM.  329 

probable  that  if  the  friends  of  the  Bible  could  give  as 
indubitable  proof  of  the  Divine  records  as  Christ  gave 
the  scribes  and  Pharisees  of  His  Divinity,  that  such  men 
as  Keunen,  Wellhausen,  Bauer,  and  Pfleiderer  would  ac- 
cept the  Bible  as  divine? 

I  make  the  charge  against  the  infidel  critics  of  crim- 
inal unfairness  in  declining  to  read  the  replies  of  able 
men  to  their  arguments,  and  declining  to  answer  the 
same. 

To  a  man  who  has  been  soundly  converted  there  is  no 
need  to  prove  that  the  Bible  is  a  Divine  revelation,  and 
that  prophecy  is  a  miracle  of  knowledge,  and  of  conse- 
quence Divine.  He  has  the  indubitable  proof  that  Paul 
had  in  his  conversion  that  "the  gospel  is  the  power  of 
God  unto  salvation  to  every  one  that  believeth,  to  the  Jew 
first,  and  also  to  the  Greek."  It  is  only  to  convince  the 
skeptical  world  that  the  Bible  is  what  it  claims  to  be,  that 
it  becomes  necessary  to  expose  the  shallow  fallacies  of 
the  higher  critics. 

Bishop  William  Taylor,  of  Africa,  recently  (January 
27,  1895)  received  a  letter  from  John  Davis,  a  converted 
and  superstitious  witch  doctor,  which  reads  as  follows: 
"Pray  for  me,  that  the  truth  may  keep  me  saved  day  by 
day.  I  have  found  out  that  it  is  all  sweet  to  have  hope 
in  Jesus  Christ,  to  trust  Him  for  all  things,  for  I  know 
and  am  sure  that  God  is  true  and  nothing  but  the 
truth. 

"Pray  for  me,  that  I  may  find  out  the  truth  more  and 
more.  Amen !  to  the  truth ;  for  Jesus  Christ  is  the  true 
Son  of  God.    I  am  your  brother  in  Him  who  is  true." 

Where  did  this  poor  heathen  witch  doctor  get  this 
clear  knowledge  and  experience  but  by  the  Holy  Spirit? 
Has  any  learned  higher  critic  anything  better  to  offer? 
We  doubt  it.  This  heathen  convert's  experience  upsets 
the  higher  criticism.  Christ  declares,  "If  any  man  will 
do  His  will  he  shall  know  of  the  doctrine,  whether  I  speak 
of  Myself."  And  this  but  confirms  Paul's  declaration, 
"That  the  world  by  wisdom  knew  not  God."  But  as  inti- 
mated, it  becomes  necessary  to  refute  error,  to  silence 


330  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

honest  doubters  and  no  other.  To  waste  time  with  dis- 
honest doubters  is  only  to  "cast  pearls  before  swine,  who 
will  turn  again  and  rend  you." 

Once  more  then  to  the  issue.  Porphyry,  an  early  in- 
fidel writer,  called  the  prophecies  of  Daniel,  especially 
that  of  chapter  xi,  "forgeries."  After  Jerome  pulverized 
his  sophistries  into  fine  dust  centuries  ago,  the  critics  are 
reaffirming  his  old  theories.  This  is  what  Porphyry  said: 
"No  one  could  have  predicted  beforehand  a  picture  so 
like  a  photograph.  The  man  who  wrote  it  must  have  lived 
afterward,  or  must  have  sketched  pen  in  hand  from  the 
actual  picture.  No  man  could  possibly  be  so  accurate  four 
hundred  years  before  the  events." 

True,  no  man  unless  supernaturally  endowed  could 
have  drawn  that  picture  so  to  the  life.  But  this  is  pre- 
cisely what  Daniel  claimed.  This  is  what  Christ  claimed 
for  Daniel's  prophecies.  This  is  precisely  what  the  author 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  claims  for  Daniel.  This  is 
a  clear  petitio  principii.  Think  of  it !  They  ask  us  to 
give  up  the  very  point  in  debate;  viz.,  the  supernaturalism 
of  the  Bible.  Are  they  not  modest?  But  consider  a  mo- 
ment what  is  implied  in  the  statement  of  Porphyry  and 
the  higher  critics  who  repeat  his  threadbare  argument. 
The  man  who  wrote  these  prophecies  must  have  lived 
afterwards,  and  must  have  sketched  pen  in  hand  from 
the  actual  picture;  that  is,  Christ's  deity,  advent,  and  suf- 
ferings were  actual  facts,  or  were  the  picture  from  which 
this  Daniel  got  his  "photograph,"  and  therefore  must  have 
been  written  after  Christ's  death.  Pfieiderer  and  others 
deny  that  these  were  facts,  or  that  the  model  from  which 
this  fictitious  Daniel  drew  his  predictions  was  real.  You 
see  what  a  mess  of  contradictions  their  varient  theories 
involve. 

Now  give  heed  to  the  following  facts :  First,  the  author 
of  this  book  says :  "I,  Daniel  alone,  saw  the  vision.  The 
vision  appeared  unto  me,  even  unto  me,  Daniel.  He  talked 
with  me  and  said  unto  me,  O  Daniel,  I  am  now  come, 
first  to  give  thee  skill  and  understanding."  He  thus  ex- 
plicitly sets  up  his  claim  of  authorship  of  this  book.    No 


THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM.  331 

other  book  of  the  Bible  sets  up  higher  or  more  distinct 
claims  than  Daniel  does  for  this.  But  contemporary  his- 
tory claims  it  for  Daniel.  Ezekiel  mentions  Daniel  along 
with  Noah  and  Job.  (Chapter  xxiv.)  Again  Ezekiel 
compares  Daniel  with  the  prince  of  Tyre,     (xxviii,  3.) 

But  higher  authority  than  the  above  we  have.  Christ 
calls  him  "Daniel  the  prophet,"  and  refers  to  an  impor- 
tant prediction  touching  the  destruction  of  the  temple 
spoken  of  by  Daniel. 

Furthermore  the  Septuagint  translated  from  the  He- 
brew 300  years  B.  C.  contains  the  Book  of  Daniel.  How 
did  it  get  there  if  Daniel's  prophecy  was  not  written  till 
after  the  events  transpired,  or,  as  some  modern  critics  tell 
us,  it  could  not  have  been  written  earlier  than  150  years 
before  Christ?  But  as  the  critics  are  expert  at  framing 
conjectures,  the  Christian  world  is  curious  to  know  how 
they  will  unravel  this  enigma  and  reconcile  it  with  their 
theory  of  the  date  of  this  book. 

Alexander  the  Great  saw  this  Book  of  Daniel  350 
years  before  Christ.  So  says  Josephus,  and  that  he  was 
delighted  to  learn  from  a  certain  high  priest  named  Jad- 
dua  that  Daniel's  "he  goat"  of  Macedon  meant  Alexander 
himself,  who  was  to  overthrow  "the  ram"  of  Persia.  An- 
other very  significant  fact  is  this,  that  Nehemiah  the 
prophet  fixes  the  date  of  this  Jaddua  the  priest  in  the 
time  of  Darius  the  Persian.  Now,  is  this  decisive  testi- 
mony of  Josephus  and  Nehemiah  to  be  set  aside  by  the 
guesses  of  the  critics?  What  are  their  opportunities  to 
pass  a  rational  decision  on  this  question  compared  with 
that  of  Nehemiah  and  Josephus?  Let  it  be  remembered 
that  there  is  a  gulf  of  over  twenty  centuries  between  them 
and  this  Daniel.  But  their  capacity  for  conjecture  is 
enormous,  and  is  only  matched  by  their  extreme  mod- 
esty (?).  "The  first  scholarship  of  the  age"  has  the 
egotism  to  expect  that  the  common-sense  world  will  gulp 
down  without  questioning  their  unsustained  theories 
against  all  of  the  above  facts,  and  immensely  more  of 
the  same,  and  only  because  they  assert  high  claims  to 
scholarship.    We  take  occasion  here  and  now  to  advertise 


332  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

them  that  it  is  a  delusive  expectation.  The  day  is  past 
when  thoughtful  and  candid  people  can  thus  be  gulled. 

It  is  not  stating  the  case  too  strongly  to  assert  that 
there  is  not  a  modern  book  to-day  that,  if  submitted  to  a 
like  treatment  the  critics  subject  the  Bible  to,  but  could 
be  proved  to  be  somebody  else's  book  than  the  real  au- 
thor's. This  unjust  and  irrational  method  of  the  higher 
critics  has  recently  been  applied  to  the  works  of  Sir  Wal- 
ter Scott,  John  Milton,  Tennyson,  Mr.  Gladstone,  and  Dr. 
Briggs,  and  if  this  method  is  correct  and  philosophical 
in  disposing  of  Isaiah  and  Daniel,  then  it  is  equally  clear 
that  these  modern  gentlemen  are  not  the  authors  of  the 
books  bearing  their  names.  In  the  next  two  thousand 
years  if  the  scholarship  will  have  so  advanced  beyond  the 
present  stage,  then  it  will  be  exceedingly  doubtful  whether 
Wellhausen,  Bauer,  Keunen,  and  Pfleiderer  were  the  men 
who  wrote  against  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  the 
Bible,  or  whether  they  were  not  somebody  else,  or  prob- 
ably myths. 

From  the  Old  Testament  they  pass  to  the  New,  and 
assail  the  Gospel  of  St.  John,  but  with  no  better  success 
than  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  not  at  all  singular  that 
they  should  attack  John,  rather  than  Matthew  or  Mark. 
John's  Gospel  favors  the  supernaturalism  of  the  Bible  and 
the  prophecies  concerning  the  Divinity  of  Christ  more 
positively  than  the  others.  The  aim  of  the  destructive 
critics  is  to  throw  suspicion  on  the  predictive  element  of 
the  Old  Testament  in  order  to  cast  discredit  on  the  Di- 
vinity of  Christ;  for  if  the  Old  Testament  is  vindicated, 
the  supernatural  character  and  mission  of  Christ  is  inevi- 
table. Hence  their  attack  on  John  and  the  miracles  of  the 
New  Testament. 

I  ought  to  devote  a  few  minutes  to  some  insinuations 
cast  on  some  of  the  writers  of  the  Bible.  Some  of  the 
writings  are  called  forgeries,  and  others  literary  immoral- 
ities. Whoever  reads  the  Bible  with  care  can  not  escape 
the  fact  that  an  elevated  ethical  tone  pervades  it;  that 
the  prophetical  portions  are  severely  impartial.  There  is 
no  covering  up  or  palliating  vice  in  king  or  subject,  in 


THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM.  333 

rich  or  poor.  The  faults  and  weaknesses  of  the  best  men 
are  detailed  with  rigid  impartiality.  The  question  I  put 
is  this:  Could,  or  rather  would,  such  men  be  guilty  of 
forgery  and  such  literary  immorality  as  they  are  charged 
with?  It  can  not  be.  It  is  quite  more  likely  that  the  ene- 
mies of  the  Bible  are  the  perverters  of  the  truth. 

This  leads  me  to  call  the  attention  of  the  reader  more 
particularly  to  the  ethical  tone  of  the  Old  Testament,  as 
it  is  the  practice  of  unbelievers  and  critics  to  berate  it. 
Consider  the  following  among  the  laws  of  those  distant 
times : 

"Thou  shalt  not  see  thy  brother's  ox  or  sheep  go  astray, 
and  hide  thyself  from  them;  thou  shalt  in  any  case  bring 
them  again  unto  thy  brother.  And  if  thy  brother  be  not 
nigh  thee,  or  if  thou  know  him  not,  then  thou  shalt  bring 
it  unto  thine  own  house,  and  it  shall  be  with  thee  until 
thy  brother  seek  after  it,  and  thou  shalt  restore  it  to  him 
again." 

"Thou  shalt  not  abhor  an  Edomite  for  he  is  thy 
brother;  thou  shalt  not  abhor  an  Egyptian,  because  thou 
wast  a  stranger  in  his  land." 

"Thou  shalt  not  deliver  unto  his  master  the  servant 
that  is  escaped  from  his  master  unto  thee.  He  shall  dwell 
with  thee,  even  among  you,  in  that  place  which  he  shall 
choose  in  one  of  thy  gates,  where  it  liketh  him  best,  thou 
shalt  not  oppress  him." 

"Thou  shalt  not  lend  upon  usury  to  thy  brother ;  usury 
of  money,  usury  of  victuals,  usury  of  any  thing  that  is 
lent  upon  usury." 

"When  thou  comest  into  thy  neighbor's  vineyard,  then 
thou  mayest  eat  grapes  to  thy  fill  at  thine  own  pleasure, 
but  thou  shalt  not  put  any  in  thy  vessel.  When  thou 
comest  into  the  standing  corn  of  thy  neighbor,  then  thou 
mayest  pluck  the  ears  with  thy  hand,  but  thou  shalt  not 
move  a  sickle  unto  thy  neighbor's  standing  corn."  This  is 
a  benevolent  provision  for  the  poor. 

"Thou  shalt  not  oppress  the  hired  servant  that  is  poor 
and  needy,  whether  he  be  of  thy  brethren,  or  of  thy 
strangers  that  are  in  thy  land  within  thy  gates." 


334  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

"Thou  shalt  not  pervert  the  judgment  of  the  stranger, 
nor  of  the  fatherless,  nor  take  a  widow's  raiment  to  pledge, 
but  thou  must  remember  that  thou  wast  a  bondman  in 
Egypt,  and  the  Lord  redeemed  thee  thence." 

"When  thou  cuttest  down  thy  harvest  in  thy  field,  and 
hast  forgot  a  sheaf  in  the  field,  thou  shalt  not  go  again 
to  fetch  it;  it  shall  be  for  the  stranger,  for  the  fatherless, 
and  for  the  widow."  So  of  the  olive-trees  and  the  vine- 
yard, they  are  for  the  stranger,  for  the  fatherless,  and 
the  widow.  "And  thou  shalt  remember  that  thou  wast  a 
bondman  in  the  land  of  Egypt;  therefore  I  command  thee 
to  do  this  thing." 

"Cursed  be  the  man  that  maketh  any  graven  or  molten 
image  an  abomination  unto  the  Lord.  All  the  people  shall 
answer,  amen." 

"Cursed  be  he  that  setteth  light  by  his  father  or  his 
mother,  and  all  the  people  shall  say,  amen." 

"Cursed  be  he  that  removeth  his  neighbor's  landmark, 
and  all  the  people  shall  say,  amen." 

"Cursed  be  he  that  maketh  the  blind  to  wander  out 
of  his  way,  and  all  the  people  shall  say,  amen." 

"Cursed  be  he  that  smiteth  his  neighbor  secretly,  and 
all  the  people  shall  say,  amen." 

"Cursed  be  he  that  perverteth  the  judgment  of  the 
stranger,  fatherless,  and  widow,  and  all  the  people  shall 
say,  amen." 

"Cursed  be  he  that  taketh  reward  to  slay  the  innocent 
person,  and  all  the  people  shall  say,  amen." 

These  are  a  part,  and  only  a  small  part,  of  the  humane 
and  just  laws  and  teachings  that  were  in  force  thirty- 
three  centuries  ago,  and  are  in  no  sense  inferior  to  any- 
thing generally  practiced  in  this  boasted  age  of  intelli- 
gence and  progress.  There  is  certainly  nothing  surpass- 
ing them  as  a  high  ethical  standard,  unless  it  be  in  the 
pure  teachings  of  Jesus,  whom  Pfleiderer  styles  "a  goody- 
goody  kind  of  a  saint,  not  without  His  faults,  and  con- 
siderably deluded." 

Who  among  the  higher  critics  of  the  Pfleiderer  stamp 
are  permitting  the  poor  to  visit  their  vineyards,  gardens, 


THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM,  335 

and  orchards  to  satisfy  their  hunger  to  the  full  without 
compensation  ?  Who  among  them  are  loaning  their  money 
to  their  brethren  and  relatives  without  interest?  Who  of 
them  are  sheltering  and  protecting  the  fugitive  slave  flee- 
ing from  his  cruel  task  master?  Who  of  them  are  not 
retaliating  on  some  Edomite  or  Egyptian  who  oppressed 
and  enslaved  them?  He  that  is  without  sin  in  these  par- 
ticulars among  the  traducers  of  Old  Testament  times  and 
literary  immoralities,  let  him  "cast  the  first  stone."  I 
think  in  the  glare  of  these  ethical  teachings  they  ought 
to  slink  away  into  oblivion.  In  the  light  of  such  teach- 
ings let  no  skeptic  bring  a  slander  against  the  morals  of 
the  Mosaic  institutes.  If  there  were  any  deviations — and 
there  were  flagrant  ones — from  these  strict  and  impartial 
laws,  it  was  not  the  fault  of  the  laws  nor  the  absence  of 
them,  but  the  deliberate  purpose  of  wicked  kings,  princes, 
and  licentious  men,  who  set  these  wholesome  regulations 
at  defiance,  just  as  we  see  the  majority  doing  now,  with 
all  the  accumulated  light  of  the  ages  before  them.  We, 
as  a  nation,  are  preparing  for  such  another  apostasy  as 
overthrew  Egypt,  Greece,  and  Rome  by  treating  lightly 
these  principles  contained  in  the  Decalogue  and  Mosaic 
Institutes.  Some  critic  will  charge  me  with  using  this 
prophecy  after  the  apostasy  has  occurred,  and  denounce 
it  as  a  forgery  perhaps;  the  only  difference  is,  mine  does 
not  profess  to  be  a  supernatural  prediction. 

In  conclusion,  we  are  clearly  of  the  conviction  from 
reading  of  the  mediating  school  of  critics,  that  they  have 
not  vindicated  the  credibility  of  the  Old  Testament  and 
its  high  claims  to  be  a  supernatural  revelation,  against  the 
argument  of  the  destructive  critics  of  the  Bauer  and 
Pfleiderer  schools,  if  Canon  Driver  and  Professor  Briggs 
are  fair  representatives  of  that  school.  A  ripe  scholar 
and  deep  thinker  says  of  Dr.  Driver's  arguments  on  the 
historical  criticism,  that  "they  are  thoroughly  loose  and 
arbitrary."  The  same  accurate  writer  says  of  Professor 
Briggs,  that,  after  giving  twenty-seven  years  of  study  to 
this  subject,  he  has  abandoned  the  ground  he  stood  on  a 
few  years  ago  that  he  regarded  as  conservative  ground, 


336  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

but  by  others  as  dangerous  liberalism.  Between  what  he 
regarded  as  solid  conservative  ground  then  and  his  book 
of  1893,  "the  gulf  is  wide  and  deep."  We  fear  that  in 
view  of  the  Christian  reputation  and  scholarship  of  the 
mediating  school,  their  ground  is  even  more  dangerous 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  supernaturalism  of  the  Bible  than 
that  of  the  infidel  school,  because  they  depend  largely  on 
the  same  arguments,  and  if  their  positions  should  be  gen- 
erally accepted  the  Bible  would  be  emasculated  and  so 
eliminated  as  to  be  a  merely  human  book,  and  have  no 
more  power  to  save  the  world  than  Shakespeare's  plays 
or  Euclid's  geometry. 

I  can  not  close  without  giving  a  half  amusing  and 
serious  account  in  my  possession  of  what  is  likely  to  be 
the  outcome  of  our  grand  old  Bible,  should  the  views  of 
the  critics  obtain  it.     It  is  entitled, 

Results  of  the  Higher  Criticism. 

Old  Deacon  Jones  had  been  brought  up  from  his  youth 
to  accept  the  Bible  as  the  undoubted  Word  of  God.  He 
had  no  more  question  as  to  the  authenticity  of  the  Scrip- 
tures than  of  his  own  existence.  He  was  therefore  very 
much  surprised  on  the  second  Sabbath  after  the  coming 
of  the  new  pastor  to  hear  him  declare  that  the  first  few 
chapters  were  a  myth ;  that  the  author  did  not  intend  to 
give  a  literal  account  of  creation,  but  wrote  this  fanciful 
record  to  counteract  the  polytheistic  tendencies  of  his 
times,  and  lead  the  people  to  accept  the  doctrine  of  one 
God. 

When  the  deacon  came  home  he  said  to  his  wife, 
"Mary,  bring  me  the  scissors."  "What  do  you  want  with 
the  scissors?"  "Why,  our  new  pastor  says  these  first 
chapters  of  Genesis  are  myths.  Now,  I  do  n't  want  any 
myths  in  my  old  Bible,  and  I  'm  going  to  cut  them  out." 
"Well,  I  would  n't  spoil  my  old  Bible  that  we  've  read 
together  so  often,  and  that  we  love  so  much."  "O,  it 
won't  spoil  it !  We  want  the  truth.  The  new  pastor 
knows  better  than  we,  for  he  is-  a  scholar."  They  were 
cut  out.    Not  long  after  he  called  for  the  scissors  again. 


THB  HIGHER  CRITICISM.  337 

This  time  the  whole  Pentateuch  had  to  be  removed.  When 
the  wife  remonstrated,  he  said:  "Why,  the  pastor  says 
that  the  best  scholarship  declares  that  Moses  did  not  write 
these  books;  that  they  were  pamphlets  gathered  from 
various  sources;  some  of  them  borrowed  from  the  As- 
syrians or  Egyptians,  and  some  statements  made  in  them 
show  that  they  were  written  centuries  after  Moses  died." 
They  were  cut  out. 

Again  the  scissors  were  called  for.  This  time  the  last 
half  of  the  Book  of  Isaiah  was  removed,  because  the  pas- 
tor said  that  "while  he  would  not  say  he  fully  believed 
they  were  written  by  Isaiah,  the  son  of  Amoz,  yet  the 
higher  criticism  of  the  schools  had  declared  that  some 
unknown  author  had  added  the  last  twenty-five  or  thirty 
chapters. 

A  few  Sabbaths  followed,  and  then  the  good  deacon 
was  surprised  to  hear  that  there  were  grave  doubts  among 
scholars  concerning  the  Gospel  of  John,  that  precious  gos- 
pel, so  full  of  the  teachings  of  the  blessed  Master,  and 
from  which  he  had  gained  so  much  comfort  and  instruc- 
tion in  the  time  of  trouble. 

Then  the  books  of  Ruth,  Esther,  Ecclesiastes,  and  the 
Songs  of  Solomon  were  cut  out.  The  story  of  Jonah  was 
made  to  appear  so  ridiculously  strange  that  the  deacon 
imbibed  something  of  the  spirit  of  the  pastor  and  slashed 
through  it  in  no  easy  manner.  Almost  every  Sunday 
there  was  a  reference  made  by  the  pastor  to  some  inter- 
polation, and  the  deacon  "didn't  want  interlopers  in  the 
Bible." 

They  were  all  cut  out,  just  as  the  scholarly  pastor 
said. 

Thus  it  went  on  to  the  end  of  the  second  year.  One 
day  the  deacon  said :  "Come,  Mary,  let 's  go  up  and  make 
our  new  pastor  a  call.  We  have  n't  been  to  see  him  very 
lately."  "Are  you  going  to  take  your  Bible  with  you?" 
"O  yes !  I  want  him  to  see  how  the  higher  criticism  of 
the  best  scholarship  has  improved  it." 

They  called  and  were  seated,  and  the  pastor  noticed 
the  peculiar  looking  book  in  the  hands  of  the  deacon. 

22 


333  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

"What  have  you  there,  deacon?"  "My  Bible."  "It  is 
a  queer  looking  Bible !  What  have  you  been  doing  to 
it  ?"  "Well  now,  pastor,  I  '11  tell  you.  Every  time  you 
doubted  any  passage  of  Scripture,  or  said  it  was  an  inter- 
polation, I  have  cut  it  out.  All  the  books  of  doubtful 
authenticity  are  gone.  The  stories  borrowed  from  heathen 
nations,  the  myths,  everything  that  you  implied  was  ques- 
tionable I  have  removed  according  to  your  teachings. 
But,  thank  God !  my  dear  pastor,  the  covers  of  the  good 
old  Book  are  still  left.  All  the  rest  is  gone,  and  I  want  to 
thank  you  so  much  for  leaving  the  covers." 


HONOLULU  SKETCHES. 

Written   at  the  Sandwich  Islands,   1856. 
I. 

Sketches  of  marked  cases  of  death-bed  scenes  are 
of  great  value,  and  should  be  preserved.  They  serve  a 
double  and  effective  purpose.  They  are  useful  to  the 
minister  in  the  way  of  anecdote,  and  when  published  in 
books  and  religious  journals  they  often  awaken  the  care- 
less, lukewarm  professor  of  religion  and  carry  conviction 
to  the  wholly  impenitent.  This  is  my  apology  for  pre- 
senting a  sketch  or  two  for  the  Advocate  that  came  under 
my  immediate  notice  during  the  past  year. 

Mr.  Smith,  an  infidel  of  the  Andrew  Jackson  Davis 
school,  came  within  the  bounds  of  my  work  in  quest  of 
health.  He  was  in  the  last  stage  of  pulmonary  consump- 
tion. I  providentially  made  his  acquaintance.  I  found 
him  a  man  of  some  intelligence,  though  not  of  extensive 
acquirements.  He  was  of  that  independent,  common-sense 
class  of  men  who  are  usually  enterprising  and  influential. 
Having  inquired  of  him  what  part  of  the  world  he  was 
from,  and  other  things  of  a  like  nature,  I  remarked  to  him: 

"Mr.  Smith,  you  seem  to  be  in  feeble  health." 

He  replied,  "Yes,  I  am  a  victim  of  consumption  and 
can  not  live  long." 

"Your   fears,   I   apprehend,   are   not   without   a   good 


HONOLULU  SKETCHES.  339 

foundation.  Well,  Mr.  Smith,  how  do  you  feel  in  your 
mind  in  view  of  death  and  the  future?" 

"Those  are  matters  I  do  not  trouble  myself  much 
about.    Like  other  men,  I  must  die  and  stand  my  chance." 

I  endeavored  to  show  him  that  he  was  a  sinner,  and 
that  he  would  stand  in  need  of  a  change  of  heart.  This 
evidently  did  not  set  well  on  him.  He  bristled  up  and 
made  signs  of  a  theological  combat.  He  soon  let  me 
know  that  he  was  an  honest  man,  that  he  was  upright  in 
his  dealings  with  his  fellow-men,  and  endeavored  to  do 
to  others  as  he  would  have  them  do  to  him.  This  he 
thought  was  all  that  God  or  men  could  reasonably  require 
of  him.  I  then  introduced  him  to  the  third  chapter  of 
John's  Gospel,  and  called  his  attention  particularly  to 
the  necessity  of  the  new  birth.  This  he  did  not  relish, 
and  fell  to  abusing  Christians.  He  thought  them  about 
all  hypocrites,  except  his  father  and  mother,  whom  he 
thought  sincere,  though  deluded.  I  continued  to  urge 
upon  his  attention  his  need  of  Christ,  that  none  other 
could  do  him  any  good  or  save  him  from  his  sins.  He 
scouted  the  idea,  and  openly  declared  to  me  his  infidelity. 
Christ  he  considered  only  a  man,  and  a  bastard  at  that ! 
I  became  very  much  shocked  at  his  rage  and  blasphemy ! 
As  soon  as  was  convenient  I  ended  the  interview  and 
bade  him  good  afternoon. 

I  called  again  the  next  day,  or  the  day  after,  but  did 
not  introduce  the  subject  of  religion.  I  inquired  concern- 
ing his  health,  and  whether  he  needed  anything  to  render 
him  comfortable  in  body.  As  he  seemed  rapidly  declining, 
I  made  inquiry  concerning  his  friends,  and  found  that  he 
had  several  children  in  the  State  of  Michigan  and  some 
other  relatives  in  the  States.  He  stated  to  me  that  he 
had  some  property  at  home,  and  that  he  desired  to  make 
some  arrangements  about  dividing  it  among  his  children. 
I  asked  him  if  I  could  render  him  any  assistance.  He 
replied  I  could  by  writing  to  his  children  and  those  having 
charge  of  them,  for  they  were  motherless.  I  promised  him 
that  I  would  call  the  next  day  and  have  him  dictate  what 
I  should  write. 


340  STORY  OF  MY  UFB. 

I  accordingly  called,  and  sat  down  to  write.  I  noticed 
when  I  alluded  to  his  children  that  he  had  a  strong  affec- 
tion for  them.  These  children  were  put  out  with  different 
families,  so  that  I  had  to  write  a  number  of  letters.  As 
I  had  about  finished  the  first  letter  and  read  it  to  him,  I 
saw  that  his  eyes  were  brim  full  and  would  soon  over- 
flow.   Said  I : 

"Mr.  Smith,  seeing  you  will  never  meet  your  dear 
children  on  earth  again,  what  shall  I  say  to  them  for  you 
concerning  the  future?"  He  was  too  full  for  utterance, 
and  buried  his  face  in  his  handkerchief  for  some  time. 
When  he  had  sufficiently  recovered  himself,  he  replied  in 
a  subdued  tone,  "I  hardly  know  what  to  say." 

"Shall  I  say  to  them  for  you,  that  you  will  endeavor 
to  meet  them  in  heaven?"  With  some  little  hesitancy, 
but  with  earnestness  and  deep  feeling,  he  answered,  "Yes, 
you  may" 

As  I  would  draw  near  the  conclusion  of  the  business 
part  of  each  of  the  letters  severally,  I  asked  him  what 
I  should  say  to  his  friends  concerning  the  future.  "Well, 
tell  them  I  will  strive  to  meet  them  in  heaven."  It  was 
just  in  this  simple  but  natural  way  God  gave  me  access 
to  this  man's  heart.  Ever  after  that  he  was  ready  to  hear 
me  speak  of  the  concerns  of  the  soul.  I  visited  him  almost 
daily  from  that  time  till  his  death,  which  was  between 
two  and  three  months.  He  soon  permitted  me  to  read  the 
Bible  and  pray  with  him,  which  I  frequently  did.  He 
became  deeply  convinced  that  he  was  a  sinner  and  needed 
Jesus  of  Nazareth,  whom  he  had  before  derided.  He 
frankly  renounced  his  infidelity,  but  expressed  his  fears 
that  God  would  not  have  mercy  on  him  for  his  guilty 
treatment  of  His  dear  Son.  For  several  weeks  he  labored 
under  serious  doubts  as  to  God's  willingness  to  have  mercy 
upon  such  a  wretch  as  he.  By  reading  the  Bible,  with 
what  little  encouragement  I  was  able  under  God  to  give 
him,  the  light  of  hope  gradually  broke  in  upon  him. 
Though  his  change  was  very  gradual,  yet  it  was  per- 
ceptible to  those  who  had  conversed  with  him  previous 
to  his  conviction.    He  came  to  have  a  great  liking  for  the 


HONOLULU  SKETCHES.  341 

Bible,  and  in  fact  would  read  no  other  book.  He  also 
took  pleasure  in  prayer  and  religious  conversation. 

Another  proof  of  a  genuine  and  thorough  change  that 
had  been  wrought  in  his  heart,  was  his  forgiving  spirit. 
He  had  a  bitter  hatred  of  some  professing  Christians, 
who,  as  he  said,  "treated  him  more  like  a  brute  than  a 
fellow  human  being."  He  said  he  could  forgive  them 
and  the  greatest  enemy  he  had  on  earth.  He  expressed 
deep  regrets  that  he  had  indulged  such  wicked  feelings 
towards  them  and  had  said  so  many  hard  things  of 
them. 

His  experience  and  light  were  those  of  the  just,  which 
shone  more  and  more  till  the  hour  of  his  death.  There 
are  many  particulars  of  interest  in  this  case  that  our 
limits  will  not  permit  us  to  notice.  A  word  about  his  last 
days  and  hours,  and  we  shall  have  done.  When  his  end 
drew  near  he  wished  to  make  as  public  a  profession  of  his 
faith  in  Christ  as  the  state  of  his  health  would  permit. 
He  desired  that  I  should  administer  to  him  the  sacraments 
of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  I  invited  two  min- 
isters of  other  denominations  to  be  present,  and  two  or 
three  Christian  females.  When  I  propounded  the  usual 
baptismal  questions  he  answered  them  in  a  clear,  melting 
tone  that  sent  a  thrill  through  every  breast.  He  enjoyed 
these  blessed  means  very  much.  A  heavenly  smile  lighted 
his  whole  emaciated  countenance,  that  was  truly  refresh- 
ing to  look  upon.  This  was  a  scene  that  can  never  be 
effaced  from  memory.  It  was  "the  chamber  where  the 
good  man  meets  his  fate,  privileged  beyond  the  common 
walks  of  virtuous  life,  quite  on  the  verge  of  heaven."  To 
the  astonishment  of  all  he  lingered  for  about  two  weeks 
after  his  baptism.    His  end  was  peace. 

Shortly  before  he  died  he  wished  to  leave  the  minister, 
at  whose  house  he  lay  sick,  and  myself  some  mementos 
of  his  regard  for  us.  He  presented  me  with  a  Bible  he 
had  received  after  coming  to  our  place,  and  the  other 
minister  with  Andrew  Jackson  Davis's  works,  or  as  he 
playfully  termed  them,  his  "Infidel  Bible."  He  requested 
that  these  infidel   publications  should  not   fall  into  the 


342  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

hands  of  men  of  unsettled  views.     He  considered  them 
very  dangerous  books. 

Such  cases  as  this  are  calculated  to  stimulate  the  min- 
ister of  Christ  to  faithful  pastoral  visitation.  There  are 
thousands  that  can  never  be  reached  in  any  other  way. 
Such  are  the  pastor's  richest  legacies.  Brethren,  enter 
this  desirable  field,  and  occupy  it  faithfully  till  the  Master 
come. 

II. 

During  the  year  1856,  while  laboring  in  the  city  of 
Honolulu,  in  the  course  of  my  pastoral  visitation  I  fell 
in  with  a  Mr.  Studley,  who  was  deeply  skeptical,  though 
not  an  out-and-out  infidel.  This  peculiarity  rendered  him 
less  accessible  than  if  he  had  been  openly  and  avowedly 
infidel.  He  was  altogether  a  peculiar  case.  He  was  the 
victim  of  a  violent  and  protracted  consumption.  His 
friends  had  been  looking  for  his  death  annually  for  the 
last  five  years,  but  to  the  great  astonishment  of  all  he 
survived  till  late  in  1856. 

He  was  a  man  of  good  natural  parts,  and  of  tolerable 
acquirements.  He  was  a  person  of  great  firmness;  very 
probably  some  would  have  termed  it  stubbornness.  He 
seemed  unmovable  in  his  views.  There  was  in  him  a 
reservedness  that  amounted  to  something  like  repulsive- 
ness.  He  was  unapproachable  on  the  subject  of  personal 
religion.  He  was  in  the  habit  of  treating  those  who  called 
upon  him  during  his  illness  and  spoke  to  him  about  his 
eternal  interest  with  great  coldness  and  even  positive 
contempt.  He  would  even  swear  at  them  and  request 
them  to  attend  to  their  own  business.  Thus  he  treated 
some  pious  and  intelligent  females  who  called  on  him. 
By  some  providence  or  other — for  it  was  not  any  good- 
ness or  skill  above  what  others  possessed — I  met  with  a 
more  favorable  reception  from  him.  I  repeated  my  visits 
frequently  for  months  together,  pressing  upon  him  as  I 
could  the  claims  of  Christianity.  Though  he  would  allow 
me  to  speak  to  him  on  this  subject,  yet  he  evidently  re- 
ceived it  coldly  and  reluctantly.    The  salvation  of  his  soul 


HONOLULU  SKETCHES.  343 

was,  without  doubt,  an  unweicome  subject  to  him.  When 
little  closely  pressed  by  me  on  certain  points  he  would 
say: 

"Mr.  Turner,  I  would  not  turn  my  head  if  an  act  so 
simple  and  easy  would  determine  my  salvation  or  damna- 
tion. I  have  become  utterly  indifferent  upon  this  subject, 
upon  which  you  seemingly  are  so  deeply  interested." 

He  frequently  expressed  himself  thus.  It  was  the 
opinion  of  those  who  knew  the  state  of  his  mind  best 
that  his  was  a  hopeless  case;  i.  e.,  that  he  had  gone  beyond 
the  limit  of  Divine  mercy.  In  fact,  I  was  driven  to  this 
opinion  at  times  myself.  I  thought  if  I  had  ever  seen  a 
case  that  was  given  over  to  believe  a  lie  that  he  might  be 
damned  this  was  one.  Finding  that  my  visits  were  not 
producing  any  marked  change  in  his  spiritual  state,  and 
witnessing  his  inveterate  incorrigibleness  and  total  want 
of  concern  about  his  approaching  end — which  he  was 
free  to  admit — I  remarked  to  him: 

"Mr.  Studley,  I  fear  my  visits  are  not  benefiting  you 
any  spiritually,  and  probably  I  had  better  desist,  seeing 
the  subjects  upon  which  I  converse  are  not  pleasing  or 
interesting  to  you." 

He  frankly  acknowledged  that  my  suspicions  were  well 
founded,  yet  he  thanked  me  for  my  well  meant  efforts 
to  benefit  him.    Upon  taking  my  leave  of  him,  I  said : 

"Mr.  Studley,  if  you  should  need  any  assistance  in  the 
way  of  means  or  attentions  to  contribute  to  your  comfort 
and  enjoyment  let  me  know  it,  and  I  will  most  gladly  lend 
you  any  assistance  in  my  power.  Your  time  here  is  evi- 
dently short,  and  I  desire  to  make  you  as  happy  and  com- 
fortable as  possible  while  you  are  in  the  body.  I  most 
kindly  and  seriously  assure  you  that  your  ease  and  com- 
fort are  infinitely  greater  here  than  they  will  be  in  the 
undying  future,  if  you  enter  it  in  your  present  state  of 
mind."  With  these  remarks  I  bade  him  farewell,  telling 
him  that  when  he  desired  to  see  me  again  to  let  me  know. 
To  which  he  assented. 

In  a  week  or  two  his  brother-in-law  spoke  to  the  gen- 
tleman with  whom  I  was  stopping,  and  said  with  em- 


344  STORY  OF  MY  LIFE. 

phasis,  "Tell  Mr.  Turner  I  think  Mr.  Studley  would  like 
to  see  him !" 

When  I  received  this  intelligence  I  knew  not  what 
to  make  of  it.  I,  however,  did  not  confer  with  my  feel- 
ings, but  hastened  to  see  the  sick  man.  To  my  utter  sur- 
prise I  found  him  rejoicing  in  a  pardoning  God.  He 
gave  me  a  most  joyful  reception,  and  we  had  a  season  of 
rejoicing  together  for  the  great  things  the  Lord  had  done 
for  him. 

I  inquired  of  him  particularly  the  circumstances  of  his 
sudden  and  remarkable  change.  He  informed  me  that 
shortly  after  I  ceased  calling  on  him,  one  evening,  being 
alone  and  lying  upon  a  lounge  in  his  sitting-room  in  medi- 
tation about  his  protracted  sickness,  what  pain  and  agony 
he  had  endured,  and  that  a  powerful  impression  was  made 
upon  his  mind  in  regard  to  his  wretched  state  of  body  and 
worse  state  of  mind.  He  said  the  impression  could  not 
have  been  more  vivid  had  a  voice  from  heaven  uttered 
it  audibly  to  him:  "If  you  murmur  and  complain  so  bit- 
terly and  angrily  about  your  comparatively  light  afflic- 
tions now,  what  will  you  do  when  driven  into  an  eternity 
of  sufferings,  compared  with  which  your  present  suffer- 
ing is  but  a  drop?" 

This  came  to  him  with  such  authority  and  power  that 
his  whole  frame  was  shaken  with  emotion.  It  further- 
more came  to  him  as  a  question  that  was  to  be  settled 
by  him  immediately.  His  hour  was  near  by.  After  a 
moment's  reflection  he  replied  audibly  to  what  he  sup- 
posed the  voice  of  God,  "Lord,  I  give  up;  I  will  yield  my 
stubborn  will!" 

Immediately  peace  flowed  into  his  soul.  He  went  to 
the  table,  opened  the  Bible,  and  commenced  reading.  It 
was  no  longer  a  sealed  Book.  The  fountain  of  tears  was 
broken  up  and  overflowed  in  a  wonderful  manner.  He 
further  informed  me  that  for  a  long  time  he  had  been 
fighting  against  God;  that  he  had  positively  dared  the 
Lord  to  come  on  with  afflictions,  but  was  finally  led  to  see 
that  "it  is  a  fearful  thing  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  the 
living  God."    The  moment  he  ceased  his  daring  rebellion 


HONOLULU  SKETCHES.  345 

and  grounded  his  unequal  arms  God  pardoned  him.  In  a 
few  weeks  after  his  conversion  he  died  in  the  triumphs  of 
the  Christian  faith. 

This  case  was  a  severe  reproof  to  my  weak  faith,  and 
taught  me  a  lesson  I  shall  never  forget  of  the  great  im- 
portance of  pastoral  visitation.  I  said  to  myself,  "There 
is  hope  for  the  most  flagrant  sinners."  In  this  field  of 
labor  most  of  those  who  have  been  converted  under  my 
labors  have  been  reached  in  pastoral  visitation.  This  we 
mention  for  the  encouragement  of  those  who  find  it  em- 
barrassing and  difficult  to  perform  this  part  of  ministerial 
duty. 

To  the  infidel  and  skeptic  this  case  is  an  additional 
proof  of  the  insufficiency  of  their  views  to  abide  the  test 
of  the  dying  hour.  God  showed  this  man  that  He  could 
prolong  his  life  for  years,  and  yet  increase  his  already 
great  sufferings,  and  after  all  they  would  be  but  as  the 
dust  in  the  balances  compared  with  the  infinite  weight 
of  torment  awaiting  him  in  the  future.  This  man  learned, 
as  every  skeptic  should  learn,  the  truth  of  the  Asiatic 
proverb,  "This  world  is  the  wicked  man's  paradise  and 
the  good  man's  hell." 


COLUMBIA   UNIVERSITY   LIBRARIES 

This  book  is  due  on  the  date  indicated  below,  or  at  the 
expiration  of  a  definite  period  after  the  date  of  borrowing,  as 
provided  by  the  library  rules  or  by  special  arrangement  with 
the  Librarian  in  charge. 

DATE  BORROWED 

DATE  DUE 

DATE  BORROWED 

DATE  DUE 

C28  (449)  M50 

938.6 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 

0035521708 

T859 


938.6                   T859 
Turner 

Story  of  my  life. 

BRITTLE  DO  NOT 
PHOTOCOPY 


,^   1QJ1C 


